This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR18769, PR25049 and PR25050 - transformational functions in initialization expressions.
- From: FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>
- Cc: "'fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, patch <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:31:35 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR18769, PR25049 and PR25050 - transformational functions in initialization expressions.
- References: <4494AAD8.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <449545BA.email@example.com>
If somebody has the intestinal fortitude, they could write
gfc_simplify_maxminloc and friends, changing the error in check.c to
being standard dependent. At the moment, however, let's aim to make
gfortran F95 compliant and get rid of these nasty ICE's.
OK, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't mistaken. Of course, the error
is lots better than an ICE.
Talking of intestinal fortitude, what constitutes a "strong breakfast"?
.... a la danoise, with schnaps and raw fish?
Not for me. Brunch-style, with lots of tea and strong coffee, eggs and meat.