From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13005 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2012 20:02:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 12904 invoked by uid 48); 12 Nov 2012 20:02:02 -0000 From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/55282] [OOP] openmp directive and classes Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:02:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2012-11/txt/msg01051.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55282 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-12 20:02:02 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Thanks pointing that. Is there any reason for not allowing the classes in > openmp? > I noticed that other compilers (eg ifort, xlf) can accommodate with this > deviation from the standard, is gfortran going in the same direction? Of course there is a good reason. What if a future OpenMP standard introduces classes in manner that conflicts with the way gfortran implements the extension? gfortran would then need an option to toggle between the standard conforming code and the GNU Fortran extension. Which, then, is the default?