This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: patch: [fortran] handle inverses of -ffixed-form and -ffree-form
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:54:14PM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> > I don't understand. Are the SPECgomp files free form or
> > fixed form? If the source is free-form, but the comments
> > use a c of C in column 1 to denote a comment, then that's
>
> Ok, let me rephrase as I'm new to this whole Fortran nomenclature.
Thanks for the recap. Your original description had me
confused.
> Due to some unknown bug, which I didn't care enough to investigate,
> calling "./f951 --help -v" displays documentation for -ffree-form,
> but does NOT display docs for -ffixed-form:
>
Oh, I see. I can understand your predicament, now.
> I missed the -ffixed-form option above, because it had no docs, so I
> assumed the sensible thing would be to use -fno-free-form, since .f90
> files get compiled as free-form by default.
OK. I'll look into to fixing this.
> I don't see why we can't accept the negative, but I really don't care
> either way.
I'm not a big fan of option proliferation. If we accepted
-fno-free-form, which would be the same as -ffixed-form, then
we should eliminate -ffixed-form. IMHO, the -ffixed-form and
-ffree-form options are preferable because one is explicitly
requesting a specific input format.
> The patch below rejects the negative, as suggested.
>
> OK?
Yes. Note, I wasn't asking you to prepare a patch. I would
have done so after others weighed in with an opinion. but,
since you've done the work, please commit.
--
Steve