Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!convex.csd.uwm.edu!jgd
From: jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu (John G Dobnick)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: A Question of Style
Message-ID: <12306@uwm.edu>
Date: 21 May 91 02:09:23 GMT
Sender: news@uwm.edu
Reply-To: jgd@uwm.edu
Lines: 61
Originator: jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu


I have recently run into a FORTRAN compiler that exhibits, to my
mind, an annoying trait.  It complains voiciferously about statement
numbers that are defined on statements, but are otherwise unreferenced.
In all my years of using FORTRAN compilers, this is the _only_ instance
of this behavior I have encountered. 

(I understand complaints about undefined statement numbers, but this
is the opposite case.  It's akin to declaring a variable, but never
referencing it.)

Two things about this behavior annoy me.  1) The warning messages that
are generated can (and do) swamp genuine errors in a "sea" of noise
messages.   2) These messages cannot be suppressed without also suppressing
_real_ warnings.

Now, this wouldn't be so bad if all these "Statement number not used"
messages were collected in one contiguous block and printed at the end 
of the other errors/diagnostics, but they are scattered hither and yon
_amid_ the more "important" messages. 

I consider this mis-behavior on the compiler's (and compiler writers')
part, and a negative reflection on the "quality of implementation" of
the compiler.

[Anecdote:  I noted this annoying behavior when compiling the
 "paranoia" program.  This program apparently had a long genesis
 resulting in a veritable multitude of statement numbers, many of
 which are not referenced in the code.  The compiler noted every
 single bloody one of them!  I will note that some of these statement
 labels are referenced in the commentary text of the code, and in the
 text messages printed by the program.  Thus, the labels are most
 assuredly _not_ superfluous.]


I'm curious about a few things.  

* Has anyone else encountered FORTRAN compilers with this trait?
  [Flagging defined but unreferenced statement labels.]

* Is this trait good or bad?  Desirable or undesirable?

* Is the inability to suppress this specific message good or bad?

* Is this allowed/forbidden/not-specified by the Standard?  (We are
  speaking X3.9-1978 here.  My perusal of the Standard leads me to
  believe this excessive nattering is not disallowed, but is also 
  not required.  However, I'm no standards expert.)

* Any general commentary on the above compiler.  (Which, other than
  this peculiarly annoying "habit", is an excellent compiler.)


-- 
John G Dobnick
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu                      ATTnet: (414) 229-5727
UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

"Knowing how things work is the basis for appreciation,
and is thus a source of civilized delight."  -- William Safire