From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23414 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2006 02:43:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 23379 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2006 02:43:30 -0000 Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 02:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060108024330.23378.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: "sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu" 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/msg00704.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #15 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2006-01-08 02:43 ------- Subject: Re: [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 02:30:51AM -0000, Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de wrote: > > I find this very offensive. As you will have noticed we have a problem report > about this, which is not closed as "WONTFIX", and thus we're definitely not > just calling this feature "excremental". Also, you're saying that Paul Thomas > (who wrote the original bug report where this wording is used) is > unprofessional and undedicated. The latter is easily disproved by taking a > look at the ChangeLog. In fact, everybody working on gfortran is doing so > out of dedication, as noone of us is getting paid for this work, and everybody > has access to commercial compilers. > > This construct in non-standard for the reasons quoted by Steve and and so far > the people working on gfortran have considered the importance of this bug > second to the other bugs they were fixing. If somebody cares enough he may > bring forth a patch, which -- provided sufficient quality -- will be > integrated, and we will be one step closer to a complete Fortran 66 compiler. > Wow. You took the words out of my mouth. It took me nearly 40 minutes to write my last reply. Self editing of some rather pointed comments. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19292