From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27084 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2006 20:27:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 27035 invoked by uid 48); 8 Jan 2006 20:27:21 -0000 Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 20:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20060108202721.27034.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: "pault 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/msg00754.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #19 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-08 20:27 ------- (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. > As several people have noted, my involvement with gcc is unprofessional; appparently in every sense of the word. If my use of the word "excremental" caused offence, I am sorry. Let me just restate it that it is my opinion that it is unprofessional fortran style to jump into IF blocks. Doubtless the original author is as much a software professional as me.... That said, you will note that I submitted it as PR because I thought that it should be fixed. Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19292