public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/61933] Inquire on internal units
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:07:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-61933-4-biB7MMDb0V@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-61933-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61933
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
You might notice that we redefined existence to be whether or not it is
connected. Units get connected when opened so your sample code needs only ask:
IF ((.NOT.is_open).AND.(istat == 0)) RETURN
Whether this is what we really want to do of course is open to discussion.
The other definition for existence is .true. for all units except -1 which is
moot because -1 will give an error and the test for existence is always .true.
and not needed. Also unit existence is processor dependent.
In your opinion, should we change it to the other definition? Unit existence
is sort of a nebulous situation. Will your code be more portable without the
test for existence?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-16 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-28 8:13 [Bug fortran/61933] New: " Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2014-08-28 4:09 ` [Bug fortran/61933] " jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-15 3:52 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-15 3:58 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-15 4:06 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-15 4:08 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-16 7:04 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2015-01-16 15:07 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-01-16 15:22 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2015-01-16 15:42 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-16 15:52 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2015-01-19 5:14 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-19 7:25 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2015-01-19 13:03 ` [Bug fortran/61933] [5 Regression] " Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
2015-01-23 2:00 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-23 2:01 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-23 2:07 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-23 2:09 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-23 3:39 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-01 13:11 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-61933-4-biB7MMDb0V@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).