public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: rchapman@acm.org
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: fortran/8308: gcc-3.x does not compile files with suffix .r (RATFOR)
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:56:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20021022164706.15280.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw)


>Number:         8308
>Category:       fortran
>Synopsis:       gcc-3.x does not compile files with suffix .r (RATFOR)
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Oct 22 09:56:00 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Bob Chapman
>Release:        gcc version 3.2 (djgpp, cygwin, mingw)
>Organization:
>Environment:
I believe this is a generic GCC problem but, so far, have only had time to verify it under djgpp, cygwin, and mingw running under several Windows 9x environments (Windows 95, Windows 98SE).
>Description:
Starting with gcc-3.x, file names with suffix '.r'(RATFOR) are no longer processed correctly by g77 -- the suffix is
recognized and the RATFOR translator is invoked but the translated output is 'dumped' to stdout (rather than being redirected to the compiler input) and g77 tries to compile an empty file.

This appears to occur because the order of the arguments has been reversed on the command line invoking ratfor.

Under 2.95:
> >ratfor -o c:\windows\temp\ccKLY2yb.f test.r

Under 3.2:
> >ratfor test.r -o c:\windows\temp\ccDRh6nH.f

I am using the 'so called' Public Domain version of RATFOR in C by 'oz' that claims to be derived from University of Arizona sources. This ratfor uses a 'getopt' that is functionally equivalent to the <unistd.h> 'getopt' and expects to find all options preceding the input filename.  When the input filename precedes the '-o' output file option, argument processing terminates without seeing the output option and the translated ratfor goes to the default stdout rather than the temporary '.f' file.

------
>How-To-Repeat:
See description.
>Fix:
Of course, I can easily change argument processing for the ratfor I'm using or use a different extension for my ratfor sources but I would prefer to have gcc revert to the argument order it used under gcc 2.95.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:


             reply	other threads:[~2002-10-22 16:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-10-22  9:56 rchapman [this message]
2002-10-23  1:26 Andris Pavenis
2002-10-26  9:18 toon
2002-10-26 12:36 Toon Moene
2002-10-28  1:16 Andris Pavenis
2002-10-28  6:16 Andris Pavenis
2002-10-28 15:21 toon

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=20021022164706.15280.qmail@sources.redhat.com \
    --to=rchapman@acm.org \
    --cc=gcc-gnats@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).