From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30820 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2006 21:55:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 30786 invoked by uid 48); 7 Jan 2006 21:55:07 -0000 Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 21:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060107215507.30785.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/19292] [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org" 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 X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00687.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-07 21:55 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > Not all of the underlying are just g77 features. Some like 18540/25705 are > legal f90, f95, f06 code an just calling them "excremental" is unprofessional. > This diminishes the 90% plus of dedicated people working on GCC. If something > is clearly impoosible to continue as part of fortran then an effort to change > the specs should be made. Well, in looking at the code in 25705, I think the code is nonconforming via 8.1.1.2 of the Fortran 95 standard. I don't have a copy of the Fortran 90 standard, but I suspect that it will also show that the code is nonconforming. -- kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19292