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: Is the included code standard conforming?

From: Brooks Moses <bmoses at stanford dot edu>
To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:30:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Is the included code standard conforming?
Organization: Stanford University
References: <20060929205320.BC5A85BB8F@mailhost.lps.ens.fr> <451D9335.2080201@stanford.edu> <9C36EEB4-4834-44AA-8C25-E582F57513D0@gmail.com>

FX Coudert wrote:

Well, there are a lot of a intrinsic functions for which one specific name (usually for the default real kind) is identical to the generic name. (And I should know, because I've just changed the whole list in intrinsic.c to be correct wrt the Standard a few minutes ago ;-)

[...]

So, I guess we could (as a compiler extension) decide that LOG is also a specific name for LOG, with a default real as argument.

We could, but Dominique's code would still be broken, because in the test_d subroutine he's passing it a double-precision argument.

I don't see any reason to introduce that particular extension.

- Brooks

References:
- Is the included code standard conforming?
  - From: Dominique Dhumieres
- Re: Is the included code standard conforming?
  - From: Brooks Moses
- Re: Is the included code standard conforming?
  - From: FX Coudert

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