From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12438 invoked by alias); 22 May 2005 18:10:43 -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 12252 invoked by alias); 22 May 2005 18:10:27 -0000 Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 18:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050522181027.12251.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de" 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: 2005-05/txt/msg03068.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de 2005-05-22 18:10 ------- Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77 Tobias Schlüter wrote: >>>------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-10 22:23 ------- >>>Fixed on the mainline. I will commit this to the branch after the obligatory >>>testing and the necessary changes (unfortunately -fsecond-underscore became the >>>default on the branch). >> >> >>[ Sorry for the late reply ] >> >>I wonder if that really means we have to stick to -fsecond-underscore on >>the 4.0 branch. Only 4.0.0 is out, and it is very probable that >>*nobody* uses it for any serious work in Fortran anyway. >> >>I feel we can safely change the default, even on the branch. > > > I'm also inclined to doing this, 4.0.1 will probably be vastly more usable > than 4.0, but I'd still like to get feedback from the list. It's really a > minor incompatibility. Especially since a lot of people seem to use > '-fno-second-underscore'. I'll commit this during the week, unless somebody objects. Toon's approval together with no objections so far is enough for me, but I wanted to give everybody a last chance to object. - Tobi -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178