From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11457 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2006 13:18:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 11412 invoked by uid 48); 8 Jan 2006 13:18:46 -0000 Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060108131846.11411.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: "tobi 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/msg00728.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #17 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 13:18 ------- Instead of continuing a pointless flame war in a PR which is only organisationally related to the bug we're talking about, let me explain a few procedural details which will hopefully make you understand that noone called your colleague's code names. You submitted a bug which was closed as a duplicate of an existing bug. In the existing bug, the submitter (who by that time wasn't yet a developer of gfortran) dismissed as "excremental" an artificial example which demonstrates a bad coding practice that has not been allowed by any Fortran standard since 1978. Somehow you form the opinion that Paul insulted your colleague, and question Paul's motivations and skills. (WRT Let me just say that Paul has fixed 105 PRs during the last year alone -- obviously he thought they were more important than this bug which he reported.) I understand your frustration that this bug hasn't yet been closed, and I'm grateful that you're using gfortran and reporting bugs, but I think that everybody's time could be better spent than by arguing about who insulted who and how the standard should be quoted. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19292