call sync_memory vs call sync_memory()

Using CAF on a CRAY.

call sync_memory  -  gets undefined external

call sync_memory() - works

if a subroutine has no args, what diference does the empty set of parens
make.

Gene Wagenbreth <genew_nospam@isi.edu> writes:

> Using CAF on a CRAY.
>
> call sync_memory  -  gets undefined external
>
> call sync_memory() - works
>
> if a subroutine has no args, what diference does the empty set of
> parens make.

Absolutely none. The 2 forms are 100% equivalent in the standard (at
least as of f77. I don't recall and didn't bother to check for f66,
but I doubt your compiler is an f66 one).  I'd be at least somewhat
suspicious that something else is going on.  Otherwise, any difference
between these 2 forms would be a compiler bug.

Note that functions are different - they require the parens.

--
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

Gene Wagenbreth wrote:
> Using CAF on a CRAY.
>
> call sync_memory  -  gets undefined external
>
> call sync_memory() - works
>
> if a subroutine has no args, what diference does the empty set of parens
> make.

Is it possible that sync_memory is one of those swell things
that can be invoked as either a function or a subroutine?
Then, since the function requires the (), the compiler could
be .  If sync_memory can be invoked either way,
then using it is probably non-standrad and all bets are off.

Dick Hendrickson
>