[Bug fortran/19292] [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran

["malitzke at metronets dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

------- Comment #16 from malitzke at metronets dot com  2006-01-08 10:41 -------
Well I am very glad you people are offended. Imaging how you would feel I some
one had called your work a piece of excrement. Excrement (with some minor
variation in spelling) comes from Latin and means vernacular M.... in Spain,
Portugal, France, Italy and S... in England, Germany, Sweden. At least per
Webster excremental is the adjective pertaining to excrement. Pofessor Emerita
C. Froese Fischer (Computer Science Vandebilt University) is the principal
author of the MCHF Atomic Structure Package. Acoording to Google there are
about 139 thousand citations and authorships to her credit. The MCHF package
has about 1.5 megabytes of source code. I never met the lady as student,
collaborator or otherwise. Calling her work even only by clearly erroneous
association excrement is equivalent to calling GCC a piece of excrement. Happy
sulking to you all!

Now to the coding and standards issues. I stand corrected by Mr Pinski as to
the contains issue. I took the statements regarding CONTAINS (page 116)in
Fortran 90 Programmning (TMR Ellis et  all) literally as just pertaining for
fortran modules to get the calling parameters properly to the compiler the way
header files do in C. Only much later in the book is the nesting issue
broached. However Mr Pinski also jumping a (in may reckoning) to a wrong
conclusion in terming my submission the short citation (a fraction of one
percent, allowable under my interprtration of Copyright) of Professor Frose
Fischer work as being the equivalent the one containing the "excremental"
adjective. The 105 label in my submission precedes the first executable
statement while the pertinent label in the ealier submission (which never
turned up when I searched for various combinations of GTO and fortran) clearly
comes after the first executable statement. This makes that "excremental" case
a clear violation of 8.1.1.2.

To Mr. Kargl I would counsel moderation is the the of the "Imperial" we and
perhaps practice some more reading specifications. His interpretation of "is"
and "shall be" in relation the 8.1.1.2 clearly shows his lack of experience. 

Last, but not least, I do not even pretend to be compiler expert, even after
having fairly good understanding of the "Dragon Book". At best I am just a
tester, regardles of having hacked GCC code since the late 80's to get GCC to
work on SCO's 386 Xenix. I got my start with plugboard punched card equipement
and worked as real-time assembly programmer. Now, I am just trying (as a
retiremnt hobby) to bring code  like Professor Froese Fischer's to a wider
audience before it is withdrawn from public access in disgust at being
belittled. If in the process I can do some further good by testing forthcoming
versions of GCC so much the better. Your reactions provide further amusement.
As a result of submitting aboout 10 Gigabytes of source code to GCC I have
other irons in the fire for the easily offended to get burned. 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19292