Hi,
> If the compiler actually did get a compiler error (i.e. gave
> a message about an internal compiler error, crashed, or otherwise
> did anything other than give a pertinent error message), then
> that would be a compiler bug. Even though your code has a bug,
> it is *STILL* a compiler bug if the compiler fails to give
> a pertinent error message. If that is the case (I can't really
> tell from your posting), then I advise submitting a bug report
> to Lahey. Your sample code is a nice small sample of the kind
> that makes for good bug reports.
Unfortunately not in this case.
As you, Van Snyder and James Giles (and ...) have pointed out, it's a
compilation error that arose because the >= operator is not defined for this
data type.
For the record, the message from Lahey was :-
Compiling file WRT_FAMX.F90.
Compiling program unit WRT_FAMX at line 1:
2104-S: "WRT_FAMX.F90", line 109: Combination of operand types
invalid.
Encountered 1 error in file WRT_FAMX.F90.
Just a fairly fatal combination of a little too much early, and much too
little reading:)
Sorry:)
Regards,
Dave.
|