This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [PATCH, Fortran] PING: Extend gfc_code internal documentation
- From: Daniel Kraft <domob1812 at gmail dot com>
- To: Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:25:02 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, Fortran] PING: Extend gfc_code internal documentation
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:from; bh=HyOJiR/rD4ydmjuusEN+aadsQwWyY9R1MrPrmOHcLs4=; b=nDELdmNPS6Yf8NGX38fZT8Hg1p1yfeppBHuaqKJPv/ajeUAhmH/01XYzu8ivOsZGNE LBQKx22aa6eDTemF6faYQcoahSyHy63NxDKuVWP5+2ZsLmrk33TgKMe8FuSzp7MYdOCs ZgKGRwAHRxWuvQ2HWcqHRDS6q7Fl84xq0THno=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=Mu7IsL+9oHxVaHmnuCkWZVRr+6AMKzZu489rCfEhQsyOxU2ALc8Z+7CwP24SEz984s bDC3ZTBRkP8o89pgGQkfkH5xwuf1sN6hvtw4wqF4Bsk0XNn/4kD2RhUSbvcR8acI/ygS ln9W6ng4OY/vKRH79oxQAWra/G/dinGKLhlQ0=
- References: <485E4DA2.4010902@domob.eu> <4863A52B.1080304@domob.eu> <4864A79E.4020803@net-b.de>
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Kraft wrote:
Are there any comments on that one?
Looks OK. Thanks for your fantastic work. Sorry that we don't do timely
Thanks, I'll address the comments and check in tomorrow evening as written.
+This statement-block will be represented in the internal gfortran tree
like
+this, were the horizontal link-chains are those induced by the @code{next}
Instead of "like this" I'd use "as follows".
Sounds good.
+next @code{ELSEIF} or @code{ELSE} block if there's a chain of them.
+
+@subsection Loops
I'd add another empty line to make it easier to find the @subsections.
Ok.
+@code{op} member set to @code{EXEC_IF}. This structure's @code{block}
+member must point to another @code{gfc_code} node being the header of the
+if-block. This header's @code{op} member must be set to
@code{EXEC_IF}, too,
Instead of "being", I'd use "which is".
Will do "that is" as suggested by Dominique.
Cheers,
Daniel, who will start with gfc_expr hopefully soon...
--
Done: Bar-Sam-Val-Wiz, Dwa-Elf-Hum-Orc, Cha-Law, Fem-Mal
Underway: Ran-Gno-Neu-Fem
To go: Arc-Cav-Hea-Kni-Mon-Pri-Rog-Tou