Return to Answer

In the 1990s, the company I worked for sold a suite of code analysis and refactoring tools for Fortran, marketed as PlusFort.

The GXCHK module performed static analysis of Fortran code to look for common errors, including:

Subprogram argument mismatch or misuse (e.g. constant actual argument is illegally modified by subprogram).

Though I am no longer in contact with the company, I can remember this being an issue with Fortran-77 and before, as evidenced by the need of a QA tool to identify such bugs.

In the 1990s, I worked for a UK company (Polyhedron Software) that produced a suite of code analysis and refactoring tools for Fortran, marketed as PlusFort.

The GXCHK module performed static analysis of Fortran code to look for common errors, including:

Subprogram argument mismatch or misuse (e.g. constant actual argument is illegally modified by subprogram).

Though I am no longer in contact with the company, I can remember this being an issue with Fortran-77 and before, as evidenced by the need of a QA tool to identify such bugs.

In the 1990s, the company I worked for sold a suite of code analysis and refactoring tools for Fortran, marketed as PlusFort.

The GXCHK module performed static analysis of Fortran code, including:

Subprogram argument mismatch or misuse (e.g. constant actual argument is illegally modified by subprogram).

Though I am no longer in contact with the company, I can remember this being an issue with Fortran-77 and before, as evidenced by the need of a QA tool to identify such bugs.

In the 1990s, the company I worked for sold a suite of code analysis and refactoring tools for Fortran, marketed as PlusFort.

The GXCHK module performed static analysis of Fortran code to look for common errors, including:

Subprogram argument mismatch or misuse (e.g. constant actual argument is illegally modified by subprogram).

Though I am no longer in contact with the company, I can remember this being an issue with Fortran-77 and before, as evidenced by the need of a QA tool to identify such bugs.

In the 1990s, the company I worked for sold a suite of code analysis and refactoring tools for Fortran, marketed as PlusFort.

https://www.fortran.uk/fortran-analysis-and-refactoring-with-plusfort/plusfort-quality-assurance/

One of the modules performed static analysis of Fortran code, including: "Subprogram argument mismatch or misuse (e.g. constant actual argument is illegally modified by subprogram)."

In the 1990s, the company I worked for sold a suite of code analysis and refactoring tools for Fortran, marketed as PlusFort.

The GXCHK module performed static analysis of Fortran code, including:

Subprogram argument mismatch or misuse (e.g. constant actual argument is illegally modified by subprogram).

Though I am no longer in contact with the company, I can remember this being an issue with Fortran-77 and before, as evidenced by the need of a QA tool to identify such bugs.