Is it a bug if a training 'nX' specifier is ignored with advance='NO'?

Question

I found that Sun Fortran does not count blanks from an 'nX' specifier when writing with advance='NO'. For example, this code:
write(*,'(A,4X)',advance='NO') '1'
write(*,'(A)') '2'
write(*,'(A,4(" "))',advance='NO') '1'
write(*,'(A)') '2'
end
results in:
12
1 2
I recall some discussion that the standards were a bit vague on trailing 'nX' with non-advancing I/O.

Answer 1

I found that Sun Fortran does not count blanks from
an 'nX' specifier when writing with advance='NO'. For
example, this code:
write(*,'(A,4X)',advance='NO') '1'
write(*,'(A)') '2'
write(*,'(A,4(" "))',advance='NO') '1'
write(*,'(A)') '2'
end
results in:
12
1 2
I recall some discussion that the standards were a
bit vague on trailing 'nX' with non-advancing I/O.The language in the standard was vague, but the standard
committee recently issued an interpretation that makes it clear.
Unfortunately, it makes it clear that what Sun f95 is doing is
wrong. CR 6580748 has been filed against the bug.
Bob Corbett