public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/61933] Inquire on internal units Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:52:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-61933-4-nRmgy1KkLp@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 #11 from Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #10) > It occurs to me another possible interpretation of what a unit existence > might be. > > Behind the scenes when opening a unit with no filename we create a file > named for example fort.10. That file name is processor dependent and the > user should not know what that filename is. (we know by convention of course) > > I wonder now whether we should define unit existence to be whether or not > the corresponding file (or device, or whatever it is....) exists on the > system. This starts to make some sense when you think about it and could > assist a user from inadvertently overwriting some existing data. I don't think this is the intended behavior. I really think the meaning rather is, can we in principle open a file on that unit number (like from the good old days, is a tape drive mechanically connected to it). I'm reading the F2008 standard, and the guidance given in 9.5.3 is not much... However, external files and external units seem to be conceptually quite different (see also note 9.16) > > I am going to reopen this for further discussion. I do agree with your > issue. thanks also for your efforts in fixing these things!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-16 15:52 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 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 [this message] 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-nRmgy1KkLp@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: linkBe 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).