…mmy argument
Several compilers accept a null pointer (with or without a MOLD=) as an
actual argument for association with an INTENT(IN) allocatable dummy
argument. At runtime, the allocatable dummy argument appears to be in
the unallocated state. This seems useful, unambiguous, unlikely to
invalidate conforming code, and works with Intel, NAG, & XLF, so it
should be supported with an optional portability warning in this
compiler as well.
I went over the output of the following mess of a command:
`(ulimit -m 2000000; ulimit -v 2000000; git ls-files -z | parallel --xargs -0 cat | aspell list --mode=none --ignore-case | grep -E '^[A-Za-z][a-z]*$' | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | grep -vE '.{25}' | aspell pipe -W3 | grep : | cut -d' ' -f2 | less)`
and proceeded to spend a few days looking at it to find probable typos
and fixed a few hundred of them in all of the llvm project (note, the
ones I found are not anywhere near all of them, but it seems like a
good start).
Reviewed By: awarzynski, clementval
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130844
f18 intentionally does not support the spottily-implemented language extension
in which one can pass NULL() for an allocatable dummy argument. This is perhaps
a sanctioned side effect in other compilers of the fact that they pass distinct
"base address" and "descriptor address" physical arguments.
Make the error message in this case more specific to the circumstances, and
add a note to Extensions.md to clarify that this behavior is intended.
(We could, with some effort in lowering, support passing NULL for an INTENT(IN)
allocatable dummy, but let's see whether such nonconforming usage appears
in a real application before spending any more time on it.)
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D130380
