From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8025 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2005 13:26:14 -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 7988 invoked by uid 48); 11 Nov 2005 13:26:11 -0000 Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20051111132611.7987.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/23815] Add -byteswapio flag In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rrr6399 at futuretek dot com" X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg01592.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #15 from rrr6399 at futuretek dot com 2005-11-11 13:26 ------- I think the approach of having multiple ways of changing the behavior is a good one. Many Unix programs do this kind of thing to allow the user to choose the best way to accomplish the goal. I've found each approach useful in the past. The environment variable approach also allows the same executable to be used for different scenarios. The only negative I see is if the executable was compiled by a different compiler (ifort, pgf95, etc.). A user might expect that the behavior will change with an environment variable setting and then wonder why it didn't. Perhaps the same environment variable names used by ifort could be used by gfortran to limit this issue a bit? (In reply to comment #14) > Thomas, > > I'm not in favor of environmental variables, which I think would > also be Paul Brook's position. It's too easy to have the variables > set or unset at the wrong time. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23815