Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 7808111
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 2, 20262026-06-02T03:03:18+00:00 2026-06-02T03:03:18+00:00

Why does GCC not warn me when I forget to specify the return type

  • 0

Why does GCC not warn me when I forget to specify the return type of a interface function? For me this behavior seams unexpected. What do you say to this?

This is the test-program (uncoment Line 6 and it works as it should):

program returntest
implicit none
    interface
    function givehalf(Y)
      double precision :: Y
      !double precision :: givehalf !<-- Uncomment this line
    end function givehalf
    end interface
    double precision :: temp

temp=givehalf(5.151515d0)
print*, 'result=   ',temp

end program returntest

function givehalf(Y)
    implicit none
    double precision :: Y
    double precision :: givehalf

    print*, 'Y=        ',Y
    givehalf=Y/2.0d0
    print*, 'return Y/2',givehalf

    return
end function givehalf

The result is this:

user@bapf028dl:/media/disk> gfortran44 -Wall return-test.f90
user@bapf028dl:/media/disk> ./a.out
  Y=           5.1515149999999998     
  return Y/2   2.5757574999999999     
  result=     -1.0579199790954590     
user@bapf028dl:/media/disk> ifort return-test.f90
user@bapf028dl:/media/disk> ./a.out 
  Y=           5.15151500000000     
  return Y/2   2.57575750000000     
  result=      2.57575750350952 
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-02T03:03:19+00:00Added an answer on June 2, 2026 at 3:03 am

    This is not a bug. The interface body inside an interface block forms a separate scope, so you should include an implicit none statement there to prevent yourself from making such errors. Without it the implicit typing rules are in effect, so the function is expected to return a real.

    interface
        function givehalf(Y)
            implicit none                 !<-- now you should get an error during compilation
            double precision :: Y
            !double precision :: givehalf !<-- Uncomment this line
        end function givehalf
    end interface
    
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Why does gcc allow extern declarations of type void? Is this an extension or
Why does GCC warn only for situations 1 and 3 and not 2 in
This code suffers from overflow because the type of intermediate results does not depend
Consider the code below. I don't understand why my GCC compiler does not try
I know MSVC can do this via a pragma message -> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/155196 Does gcc
gcc does not like the following code: inline const plus(unsigned x,unsigned y) __attribute__((pure)); inline
Following code does compile in gcc 4.5 but it is not being compiled in
In the following code, gcc does not instantiate the NSP::Admin and NSP::Server objects. It
Why does not GCC compile the C99 by default? I mean why is it
I recently encountered some code that gcc would not compile without this arg. I

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.