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: test for the MOD() intrinsic

From: FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
To: Richard E Maine <Richard dot Maine at nasa dot gov>
Cc: Uttam Pawar <uttamp at us dot ibm dot com>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:10:03 +0100
Subject: Re: test for the MOD() intrinsic
References: <1133213706.17879.31.camel@linux.site> <a51b553a2c42d1ce2fe41435f5166be9@nasa.gov>

So my conclusion is that if you want to support both variants depending on the -std= setting, f95 and f2003 are the same, with f90 being different.

As a personnal note, I think we want to implement the f95/f2003 behaviour, that is, change nothing.

FX

References:
- test for the MOD() intrinsic
  - From: Uttam Pawar
- Re: test for the MOD() intrinsic
  - From: Richard E Maine

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