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]

gfortran links to bug lists


Dear All,

When I made the links to specific categories of bugs on the gfortran wiki, I was trying to point out that we are still a ways from having a fully satisfactory F95 compiler - admittedly, the bugs are getting to be increasingly obscure but our aim should surely be to make as good an F95 compiler as we can before moving on to F2003.

I find it a bit concerning that the focus has shifted so far to F2003 that I have had to resurrect my own Bugzilla lists. Is this really what we want to be doing right now? If so, OK, I'll plough my own furrow but I'd rather that we all pulled together.

I am as keen as the next to get serious F2003 features into gfortran. In fact, I have ideas about how to proceed on many of them, and have even done some fairly serious experiments on them - eg. the ABSTRACT INTERFACE and PROCEDURE patch. However, I do think that we should walk before we run. I am struck that Tobi Schlueter and I were talking character bugs two years ago and that I am still struggling, after all this time, with a very big character patch.

I was very disappointed at the complete lack of interest in revamping the parser to carry out some fairly fundamental inprovements to gfortran. Whilst we are doing OKish on Polyhedron execution tests, we are still not scoring very well on diagnostics and module usage is woefully slow. (Try to get your heads around F2003 classes without sorting this out.)

What do you all think? Am I wasting my energy or are others also committed to a systematic development of gfortran?

Yours

Paul




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