This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: wide-int, fortran
- From: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gfortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 12:13:14 -0800
- Subject: Re: wide-int, fortran
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <DDF8569C-14AF-4E64-AA91-0EA50A49E043 at comcast dot net> <20131123201618 dot GA31525 at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu> <3827937B-185F-4F85-8FDF-73024C52B491 at comcast dot net>
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 07:49:16PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 11:21:21AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> Richi has asked the we break the wide-int patch so that the
>>> individual port and front end maintainers can review their
>>> parts without have to go through the entire patch. This
>>> patch covers the fortran front end.
>>>
>>> Ok?
>>>
>>> + *logical = wi::eq_p (t, 0) ? 0 : 1;
>>
>> I can't find the meaning of :: in n1256.pdf. What does this do?
>>
>> Also, given the complete lack of a description of what this
>> patch does and no pointer to a discussion of what this
>> patch does, and no description of its benefit to gfortran,
>> I vote "no".
>
> I don't like the notion that one person says yes, and one says no,
> and then we ignore the no, and use the yes to approve a patch. Can
> the fortran come up with a final unified answer? Thanks.
My original comment had nothing to do with the technical merit
of the patch. My comment, as shown above, objected to dropping
a patch on (gfortran) developers with *no* explanation of the
patch and *no* pointer to where a discussion may have occurred.
--
Steve