This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: iostat
- From: Daniel Franke <franke dot daniel at gmail dot com>
- To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:53:10 +0200
- Subject: Re: iostat
- 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=eSiBv2PJEK72cQ1cnf5ZqQKlsU5xf2sKzCrSkvwA8JxHwSUQ4Kki7S4m07+IVRYuks9f+DlKVUwDr5AOUeehtmW5N5LopcnXBiQtexgPvD+9faRvXxvZHdzN/1pTgvsy9GFhXWAgVG4TFtiqusE/A/Ah9gfhZbhSx2/WoZTvlYs=
- References: <200608222207.10617.franke.daniel@gmail.com> <20060823064250.GA741@acclab.helsinki.fi> <20060823170310.GA47691@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
Steve,
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 18:34, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to implementing better
> error messages. I think some people fail to see the potential
> size of the problem.
No problem to admit, I am one of them. If have no clue
whatsoever. Just thinking aloud =)
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 19:03, Steve Kargl wrote:
> If we do this (and I'm not necessarily opposed to better error
> messages), then I think we should add new (nonstandard) intrinsic
> procedure, say, iostat_to_msg().
[snip]
> void
> iostat_to_msg(GFC_INTEGER_4 *iostat, char *msg, gfc_charlen_type len)
> {
> strncpy(msg, strerror(*iostat), len-1);
> }
Isn't this what the perror() extension is about?
It does not take iostat as argument, but works nevertheless ...
Regards
Daniel