Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!vsnyder
From: vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: What does "adjustable array is not a dummy argument" mean?
Message-ID: <1991May2.215420.13498@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: 2 May 91 21:54:20 GMT
References: <1991Apr18.223457.23190@menudo.uh.edu> <7188@oasys.dt.navy.mil> <1991May02.183125.4093@afit.af.mil>
Reply-To: vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Van Snyder)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 31

In article <1991May02.183125.4093@afit.af.mil> dlindsle@afit.af.mil (David T. Lindsley) writes:
>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
>[...]
>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)

The last time I used Sun's dbx, on a 3/160 about two years ago, it
suffered from this disease.  The problem is that dbx is a C debugger.  It
doesn't know squat about Fortran.

-- 
vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsnyder@jato.uucp