On Aug 18, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Phillip Helbig <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> sorry, I meant
>>>>
>>>>> complex :: j=cmplx(0.0, -1.0), z=cmplx(0.0, -4.0)
>>>>
>>>> Can't the cmplx be dropped?
>>>
>>> Should it be dropped?
>>
>> Why? The statement looks fine.
>>
>>>
>>> %F90-W-WARNING, Fortran 95 specifies that an elemental intrinsic
>>> function here be of type integer or character and each argument must be
>>> an initialization expr of type integer or character (R730.4). [CMPLX]
>>
>> That limitation was dropped over a decade ago. I'd be a bit concerned a=
>> bout a compiler that is still printing messages that are this obsolete.
>
> OK. The compiler is much older than 10 years. :-(
That makes sense. I’d be cautious about believing standard-conformance messages from a compiler that old. Perhaps cross-check the code with something like gfortran on a laptop or workstation.
>
> I still use VMS. VSI, who is now developing VMS, has promised to get
> the compilers back up to speed.
Depending on the meaning of “up to speed”, that could be a non-trivial task.
> (VAX FORTRAN used to be the default
> industry standard.)
It was very solid. And the best printed documentation I’ve seen to date
>
> For what it's worth, the compiler compiles both versions and they
> produce the same output. I presume the "cmplx" is not needed.
Correct. The cmplx is not necessary in this example. Just
>>>>> complex :: j=(0.0, -1.0), z=(0.0, -4.0)
is OK.
Cheers,
Bill
Bill Long [log in to unmask]
Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101
|