Aleksandar Donev wrote:
> Intel's compiler gives an error for the following function because it
> does not assign a return result:
>
> function test(x)
> write(*,*) "error!"
> stop
> end function test
>
> Is this kind of compiler behavior allowed? If yes, why should a silly
> compiler be allowed to play so smart (it should of course give a
> warning)...
actually, the silly compiler is completely correct - the function
result *must* be assigned (or otherwise given a value), even if the
silly function is just going to print a msg and stop
-John Turner
LANL, CCS-2
|