Fortran 95 standard compliance warnings

Accelerated Computing HPC Compilers Legacy PGI Compilers
1

Hello,

Is it possible to get warnings for only F95 standard violations. If I use the

-Mstandard

option, I get a mix of F90 and F95 warnings?

Thanks,

Bil Kleb

2

Hi Bil,

-Mstandard should give warnings for all non-standard Fortran extensions based on the most current Fortran standard that we support. For the warning you’re getting, is this a violation that occurs in both F90 and F95 or is a extension that was added to F95 standard that we should no longer give a warning?

Thanks,
Mat

3

Sorry, my original question was too light on details.

I’m using,

pgf95 7.2-5 64-bit target on x86-64 Linux -tp k8-64e

with the -O0 -Mstandard options, and getting warnings like,

PGF90-W-0170-F90 extension: PURE attribute (somefile.f90: 3)
PGF90-W-0170-F90 extension: CPU_TIME intrinsic procedure (afile.f90: 148)
PGF90-W-0171-F90 extension: nonstandard statement type FORALL (a.f90: 16)
PGF90-W-0171-F90 extension: nonstandard statement type ENDFORALL (b.f90: 16)

But I also see these,

PGF90-W-0170-F90 extension: c-style #line directive (preprocess.F90: 1)

which were unexpected, because I thought it wouldn’t worry about
the pre-proccessed source, only the source after it passed through
the C-preprocessor (i.e., without #line directives).

Regards,

Bil Kleb

4

Hi Bil,

I agree. The compiler should not be giving warnings about legal F95 that happen to have been an extension in F90. I’ll pass this on to our engineers. Though, I think the warning about using C pragmas is still valid but will pass this on as well.

Thanks,
Mat

5

Thanks for passing on the F90 extension warning issue.

As far as the pragmas, how would I avoid those warnings for a Fortran code that requires pre-processing before being compiled? No other compilers give such a warning because presumably they are working on the processed source, not the pre-processed source? (I.e., they know that a capital “F” extension means pre-processing is required before compilation.)

6

Hi Bil,

I talked with our lead compiler engineer about the warnings for “# line” pragmas. While it’s not standard and that we do carry this information forward past the initial pre-processing step, we concluded that the warning doesn’t really provide any useful information. Hence, we plan on removing this warning in the future.

In the meantime, the sub-optimal way of working around this is to first pre-process the file using the “-F” flag, then compile use -Mstandard. For example:

pgf90 test.F90 -F ; pgf90 -o test -Mstandard test.f -Mfree

We appreciate the input,
Mat

7

FYI, I added this was added as Technical Problem Report (TPR) #15382.

  • Mat
8

Is there a mechanism to be automatically informed with this issue is repaired? I.e., a publication-subscription service like RSS, email, twitter, SMS, or the like?

9

Hi Bil,

One of the final steps of our release process is to send out email notifications of fixed TPRs. Though for users who submit reports via the user’s forum, I will usually just post the notification. For this TPR, I’ll ask customer support to send you an email once it’s been fixed.

  • Mat