This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [gfortran] patch PR 17229

From: Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>
To: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org,François-Xavier Coudert <Francois-Xavier dot Coudert at lcp dot u-psud dot fr>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 18:00:21 +0200
Subject: Re: [gfortran] patch PR 17229
References: <4253F866.3050009@lcp.u-psud.fr> <4254002A.9060606@physik.uni-muenchen.de> <200504061649.20637.paul@codesourcery.com>

Paul Brook wrote:
>>1. this is an extension as I pointed out in the PR so we should issue a
>>warning and reject this if pedantic.
> 
> 
> I disagree. an arithmetic-if-stmt is an action-stmt, so AFAICS the above code 
> is legal F95.
> 
> The f77 standard contains similar wording, ie. it disallows logical IF 
> statements, but does not say anything about arithmetic IF statements.
> 
> Arithmetic IF statements are obsolescent in f95 and deleted in f2k3, so we 
> should issue a message about that. This is a preexisting bug.

You are correct on all three counts, I just double-checked the standard.  It
looks like I didn't look at the end of the otherwise alphabetically ordered
list in R216 when I wrote that comment in the PR.

Thanks for checking this,
- Tobi

References:
- [gfortran] patch PR 17229
  - From: FranÃois-Xavier Coudert
- Re: [gfortran] patch PR 17229
  - From: Tobias Schlüter
- Re: [gfortran] patch PR 17229
  - From: Paul Brook

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]