From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id ACFA13861867; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:02:14 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org ACFA13861867 From: "tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/98012] New: [OpenACC] 'gcc/fortran/scanner.c:include_line' should consider 'flag_openacc' in addition to 'flag_openmp'? Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:02:14 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: openacc X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status keywords bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter cc target_milestone Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 11:02:14 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98012 Bug ID: 98012 Summary: [OpenACC] 'gcc/fortran/scanner.c:include_line' should consider 'flag_openacc' in addition to 'flag_openmp'? Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: openacc Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org CC: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- If that indeed is meant to be different, then let's please add some "dummy handling"/commentary to make this explicit, to show that we did consider th= is.=