This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Reverted my ISO C BINDING branch changes.
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:21:50 +0100
- Subject: Re: Reverted my ISO C BINDING branch changes.
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:from; b=VUr7OBD+RkTeHys0NUiufws0ejx9KSAiyZ1rAgnFvBU/Cm0nYETDb+mKWWxcOIYxGYLy5JlVjTCWTffPSqK75pbJHbLpVQ3z3cDNyN5MzrYIfvmoVxy/8eVdxiLhEdIhetsx2n8nbzrXTiFOnKXvu5Hh1Xn/uAR6B8mJl++dKrE=
- References: <20061227231523.GA88838@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
On Thursday 28 December 2006 00:15, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Apologies for the code churn. :(.
>
> I reverted revisions 120187, 120190, and 120209, which are a misguided
> attempted at cleaning up the ISO C BINDING patch and other inconsistencies
> in the source code.
>
> After spending 4 days of looking at the gfortran source code, it
> became painfully apparent that there are a number of atrocious
> formatting issues (IMHO). Some of these problems were carried over
> from the initial import of the g95 source code. Others are probably
> due to each submitters personal coding style, which differs from the
> GNU coding standard.
It looked like a good cleanup that is going to have to be done
sooner or later. So I don't see what was misguided about your
patches.
IIUC one of the reasons to put the ISO C bindings patch on the
branch, was to clean up the coding style issues. Is there now
a new plan to fix those issues?
Gr.
Steven