From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15316 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2005 22:06:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15273 invoked by uid 48); 3 Mar 2005 22:06:43 -0000 Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050303220643.15272.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050223185848.20178.stevenj@fftw.org> References: <20050223185848.20178.stevenj@fftw.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00418.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-03 22:06 ------- I agree with you that -ff2c should imply -fsecond-underscore. I don't agree that the advantages of -ff2c outweigh the disadvantages of -fno-f2c so far that -fno-f2c should be the default. If we don't switch to -fno-f2c as default now, it will never happen in the foreseeable future. One practical problem with gfortran and -ff2c is the following: gfortran's library uses the -fno-f2c calling convention, so using -ff2c with my patch so-far will break use of complex functions as actual arguments. The restriction from the quote from g77's documentation applies the exactly opposite way. I haven't yet looked into how much of an effort fixing this would be. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178