Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald
From: mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: fortran problem
Message-ID: <50500054@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 88 13:36:00 GMT
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:<8806111222.AA06982@jade.berkele:-38:uxe.cso.uiuc.edu:50500054:000:752
Nf-From: uxe.cso.uiuc.edu!mcdonald    Jun 12 08:36:00 1988



>      CALL TRY ( 1 )
>      WRITE (1,*) 'THIS SHOULD BE PRINTED ON UNIT 1'
>      I=1
>      WRITE (*,*) ' I (SHOULD BE 1) = ',I
>      STOP
>      END

>      SUBROUTINE TRY ( KUKU )
>      KUKU = 8
>      RETURN
>      END
This is the classic expression of a common stupid Fortran bug. It is
not legal Fortran for a subroutine to redefine the value of a constant
or expression. It doesn't matter WHAT a given compiler does with it:
it is an illegal construct. It is up to the programmer to write correct
programs. Fortran compilers are required to give correct output
with correct programs. If you feed them a program with a bug in it,
the resulting output is "undefined" , which means essentially anything
is "correct" behaviour of the compiler.