Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!wlbr!lonex.radc.af.mil!blackbird.afit.af.mil!dlindsle
From: dlindsle@afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: What does "adjustable array is not a dummy argument" mean?
Message-ID: <1991May02.183125.4093@afit.af.mil>
Date: 2 May 91 18:31:25 GMT
References: <1991Apr18.223457.23190@menudo.uh.edu> <7188@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology; WPAFB, OH
Lines: 28

In article <7188@oasys.dt.navy.mil> roth@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Pete Roth) writes:

>      dimension seq(1)
>                    ^-------------all the compiler _should_ need to know

As has already been pointed out, this creates problems if your
compiler does array bounds checking.

Here's a further wrinkle.  If this array is declared within a common
block, most compilers will say "common block FOO has different sizes
in module BAR and module BLETCH".  (Naturally.)

But here's a REALLY good one:
If you try using _dbx_ (BSD4.3) on this code, it will show all array
entries, even those with subscripts higher than one.  But -- all but
the first (i.e. seq(1)) will show up as zero.
And if you declare the array as seq(*), you won't be able to examine
the entries whose subscripts are greater than one.

I don't know how pervasive this problem is -- I haven't tried to
duplicate it on any of our other Un*x debuggers.  (Maybe Sun's _dbx_
doesn't suffer from this problem?)  I *am* fairly certain that the
problem does not affect VMS Fortran/VAX DEBUG.

-- 
Dave Lindsley	#24601#					   OPINIONS. MINE. 
dlindsle@blackbird.afit.af.mil		(The words don't come no smaller.)
	"If you don't succeed at first -- transform your data!" (me)