This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [gfortran] patch for PR libfortran/25425
- From: Thomas Koenig <Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de>
- To: FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gfortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 20:52:00 +0100
- Subject: Re: [gfortran] patch for PR libfortran/25425
- References: <3d8d16bf53646c4d76dfaf46e0596d07@gmail.com>
:REVIEWMAIL:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 10:28:02PM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> Attached patch fixes PR libfortran/25425: list-directed output of 0.0
> changed between F95 and F2003. The former required an E format to be
> used, while the latter requires a F format.
That's good.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on i686-linux. OK for trunk?
> Another question is: the patch for that issue requires a small change
> in the set_std() libgfortran function. In the future, this might be
> usefull in the 4.1 branch (for this or other patch which introduce an
> explicit dependency in the library on the standard chosen, not only for
> warnings and error messages). Can this be done after the release of
> 4.1.0? Or is it forbidden by binary compatibility, in which case we
> might want to push it a bit so that it's present in 4.1.0?
First, I agree that standards warning in the library should only
be given when "-pedantic" is set. Could you also mention this
in the documentation?
Second, this change is something we can't do between 4.1.0 and 4.1.1.
Adding another argument to a function will break things when there
is a mismatch between compiler and library.
It's probably too late now, but for future cases, a bit mask would
probably be better; it can be extended without many problems.
When we redesign the whole library interface for 5.0, we can try
once more :-)
So, I'd say this is OK trunk, and for 4.1 a bit later (to get
this in before the release), unless somebody speaks up against
this within 24 hours or so.