This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [RFC] fseek, an alternative implementation (PR22359)
Brooks Moses wrote:
I think we're probably in full agreement that we should do the simplest
possible solution here that isn't fundamentally broken, with the intent
that we can close the PR about FSEEK not being implemented, and
hopefully never have to worry about this again. :)
My personal feeling -- and this is where I think we disagree -- is that
the absence of some way to indicate an error means that the function is
a little bit broken (which bothers me, albeit more on an aesthetic than
a practical level), and it's a pretty trivial amount of additional
complexity to add it. Daniel seems to be willing to include it, so thus
I'd say we should let him if he wants to.
On the other hand, if Daniel were to offer an implementation which
doesn't have STATUS implemented, I wouldn't object to that either.
Mainly I'm just saying that I disagree with saying that he should remove
it.
It's definitely not worth spending more time on this :) I take it that
you believe that adding a g77-compatible version will not be made harder
by this patch, and therefore retract my objection. I looked at the
patch, and except for the choice of the right integer kinds, as
mentioned in the other replies, it looks sound to me.
Cheers,
- Tobi