Re: [Fortran, Patch] PR31547 - Document when gfortran runs the preprocessor

[Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>]

Index: gfortran.texi
===================================================================
+Many Fortran compilers including GNU Fortran allow to pass the source code
+through a C preprocessor (CPP; sometimes also called Fortran preprocessor,
+fpp) to allow for conditional compilation. In case of GNU Fortran
+this is the GNU C Preprocessor in the traditional mode.

In @cindex you had FPP (all uppercase); want to make this consistent?

+On systems with
+case-sensitive file names, the preprocessor is automatically invoked if the
+file extension is @code{.F}, @code{.F90}, @code{.F95} or @code{.F03};

Is this only the case for case-sensitive file systems (where x.f and x.F
are two different files) or also for case-preserving file systems (where
the file name can be written as x.f or x.F)?

+otherwise use for fixed-format code the option @code{-x f77-cpp-input}
+and for free-format code @code{-x f95-cpp-input}. The calling of the
+preprocessor can be suppressed using @code{-x f77} and @code{-x f95}.

I believe this might sound better as "the option...for ...-format code".

How about "Use of the the preprocessor" or "Invocation..."?

+If the GNU Fortran invoked called the preprocessor, @code{__GFORTRAN__}
+is defined and @code{__GNUC__}, @code{__GNUC_MINOR__} and
+@code{__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__} can be used to determine the version of the
+compiler.

"invoked" or "called", but not both. ;-)

+While CPP is the de-facto standard, Part 3 of the Fortran 95 standard
+(ISO/IEC 1539-3:1998) defines Conditional Compilation, which is not
+widely used and not directly supported by the GNU Fortran compiler.

"de-facto standard for preprocessing Fortran code", perhaps?

+You can use the program coco to preprocess such files

@command{coco}?

Index: intrinsic.texi
===================================================================
--- intrinsic.texi	(revision 128271)
+++ intrinsic.texi	(working copy)

This is part of a different patch, I assume?

This patch is fine with me if you address the issue pointed out above.
According to the rules of Fortran-land you may need approval by a Fortran
maintainer, I'm not sure.

Gerald