From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2019 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2009 10:00:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 1978 invoked by uid 48); 30 Aug 2009 10:00:24 -0000 Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 10:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090830100024.1977.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/39626] Fortran 2008: Implement BLOCK construct In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "domob at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg02307.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-30 10:00 ------- I'm not sure it needs really that much changes... After all, the semantics can probably be simulated completely via replacing the BLOCK-constructs with contained procedures that are called where the BLOCK originally was? That's of course not a nice implementation and I do not think we should actually do this, but I believe that there needs not be that much change -- I'll work on this and try to find out a good way. -- domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |domob at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2009-04-03 16:43:38 |2009-08-30 10:00:24 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39626