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]

[patch][rfc] Some changes to the manual

From: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:00:16 +0200
Subject: [patch][rfc] Some changes to the manual
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:mime-version:content-type; bh=ZnWbwxS5hvGlaUNX3BLZGo5Srpiqzk9tLsSyyjaS7M8=; b=PNvrOFnCSJ+nx7/wqfBml+y9yzcrGOXlujaiFGsXmjUKl2ie3HhkuCzWihV2F8aeVu HMKYJhVWebBlrpyWNBFD2R5a3rbcSyn4GdHnDbHSJ025NMzsIDLXzXoLV5suRNCW2L9o L5WT9k0BV8cbIRzwOj534DUU4/dxieIrzXOuU=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=LcWSa1KtzZNmSYKqWabwSPpytAp7anyG0YFL6D9KBef9iuDMH0OtWen7k1ZqcS2OdL RET1dqFZJPs9ej61eVs/HWME13aXoUBEWEVRq1p0VBGq8XT26fcMbilK4k+60MnDsdLc 2JeX4nZGyruKI2xiu2NTnMJQTvakyKP9hVt0c=

Hi,

I noticed in the manual that gfortran is still considered of "early
development" quality.  It seems to me that this is a bit too
pessimistic.  The attached patch updates some of these remarks.  I
took the liberty to add some historic remarks.  It seemed like a good
idea to also admit in the manual that gfortran 4.0 and gfortran 4.1
are maybe not so great (and then to continue about how great 4.2, 4.3
and 4.4 are ;-)

Thoughts?

Gr.
Steven

Attachment: t
Description: Binary data

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch][rfc] Some changes to the manual
  - From: Daniel Kraft

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