This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [PATCH] gcc/fortran/intrinsic.texi
- From: Daniel Franke <franke dot daniel at gmail dot com>
- To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:17:16 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcc/fortran/intrinsic.texi
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=KWQXvUewk9kxesT/VYdFt6zaps5uEnuMgq3D9bGEzi8LjoFhRKYAWN97gRCNGn5jnKzM3ZnkUveHz/ok2sPTyjAqdVGP4zxLXMRB2dmIxHwh1c5xoU7o09TGroZspBA/jM2QOsunK6az2f/17MPFDwpbx/GvIQOPfGDJ3AfFs6Y=
- References: <200608131649.42378.franke.daniel@gmail.com> <200608191523.34776.steven@gcc.gnu.org>
On Saturday 19 August 2006 15:23, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Please find attached a patch to update gfortran's documentation of
> > intrinsics.
>
> It looks like a good improvement to me, although I do have
> a few questions:
> > Changes:
> > * added doc-stubs of the missing intrinsics
>
> I would say something more informative than DOCTODO here. I hope
> this patch will be in GCC 4.2 but DOCTODO doesn't look very friendly
> to the users ;-)
I agree. My reasoning for this was to have at least something. It is even less
friendly if someone checks the list of intrinsics and finds not all of them
documented. There IS a difference between documented and implemented, but Joe
Average might not see this. So I concluded that it is a first improvement to
list everything that is available. Obviously, all those DOCTODOs have to be
fleshed out in the future. If I am not mistaken, all of them are placed in
lines of their own and can therefore easily be replaced with a phrase that is
more appealing.
> > * changed the "Options" section to "Standard"
> I actually liked the old way. It tells you explicitly what option
> you have to add to enable the intrinsic you're reading about. With
> the new scheme, the user has to go look for the option to enable
> the standard he needs to get the intrinsic to work.
> If this was discussed before, I'm sorry I missed that. Otherwise,
> I'd like to propose we stick with the "Options" thing...
FX already replied to this. References:
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-07/msg00045.html
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-07/msg00245.html
> You can make the diff a tad more readable if you leave out the
> whitespace changes, they're obvious anyway.
Noted.
> Do we really need to document Standard operators like EQV and NEQV?
> +* @code{NEQV}: NEQV, Logical non-equivalence
I must have picked them up somewhere while preparing the full list.
Can not tell when or where (or why).
> What is this change for (or rather, why were those @comments there
> before your patch)??
> @@ -4923,147 +7337,257 @@
>
> -@comment gen fstat
> -@comment sub fstat
> -@comment
> -@comment sub getarg
> -@comment
> -@comment gen getcwd
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-07/msg00033.html:
FX> You'll note that some of these intrinsics are present at the
FX> end of intrinsic.texi, as comments, to keep track of them.
Daniel