This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Infamous PR fortran/19925
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Paul Richard Thomas" <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Steve Kargl" <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:38:29 +0200
- Subject: Re: Infamous PR fortran/19925
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=eqy3hrg1tPr/kpLKwz5azpbTA1IhAbIfFwV4GrL6VAs=; b=mC9Jft3GdfyMJXVhigTkQNhyJBRCE6Y7NcGQv/tmLHqDigyayVr3dSCLOKmaLfTZbg idKn65FhZZIqg9jOyaGahwBek5YTRjAEzmgr36fXeDTEWguZA+sSn7Eoni/WQYJ+q4MG Ve91Nyb0mYxThkbqhao8zM8N8fG77GbtJFQg4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=tVmVT5vN/ZfaUif1Rblx3fx/Eo3MVWcOZG+ONw/DSw+lykvFx1THHm/4S8Nh3SU3rg WHPJRmcwTynvV84PxDZaAjQWxzZlD6Q0X+GWXIqawAhy4HnNyvqm4LpBpW8tbvmdVIKX EZwz//FwadUEhoIM4XhKVImBEVYXapz0f93Xk=
- References: <20080914051717.GA19461@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <339c37f20809140220m1f14dae1sc3a6f3bac2d95012@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Paul Richard Thomas
<paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Steve Kargl
> <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>> Well, I spent some time last week thinking about PR
>> fortran/19925 and have decided that the best option
>> may be to punt. Consider the somewhat far fetched
>> but legal Fortran,
>
> I concur with you completely on this. I have visited this PR on one
> or two occasions and have failed to come up with any better
> alternative. Maybe a warning like that at the head of module files
> should be emitted? :-)
Are you really required to expand these declarations at compile-time
(Yes, I see these are PARAMETERS, but ...)? Otherwise I would suggest
to promote them (and dependent parameters) to static storage that is
runtime-initialized.
Richard.