This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
fortran/8308: gcc-3.x does not compile files with suffix .r (RATFOR)
- From: rchapman at acm dot org
- To: gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 22 Oct 2002 16:47:06 -0000
- Subject: fortran/8308: gcc-3.x does not compile files with suffix .r (RATFOR)
- Reply-to: rchapman at acm dot org
>Number: 8308
>Category: fortran
>Synopsis: gcc-3.x does not compile files with suffix .r (RATFOR)
>Confidential: no
>Severity: serious
>Priority: medium
>Responsible: unassigned
>State: open
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: net
>Arrival-Date: Tue Oct 22 09:56:00 PDT 2002
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: Bob Chapman
>Release: gcc version 3.2 (djgpp, cygwin, mingw)
>Organization:
>Environment:
I believe this is a generic GCC problem but, so far, have only had time to verify it under djgpp, cygwin, and mingw running under several Windows 9x environments (Windows 95, Windows 98SE).
>Description:
Starting with gcc-3.x, file names with suffix '.r'(RATFOR) are no longer processed correctly by g77 -- the suffix is
recognized and the RATFOR translator is invoked but the translated output is 'dumped' to stdout (rather than being redirected to the compiler input) and g77 tries to compile an empty file.
This appears to occur because the order of the arguments has been reversed on the command line invoking ratfor.
Under 2.95:
> >ratfor -o c:\windows\temp\ccKLY2yb.f test.r
Under 3.2:
> >ratfor test.r -o c:\windows\temp\ccDRh6nH.f
I am using the 'so called' Public Domain version of RATFOR in C by 'oz' that claims to be derived from University of Arizona sources. This ratfor uses a 'getopt' that is functionally equivalent to the <unistd.h> 'getopt' and expects to find all options preceding the input filename. When the input filename precedes the '-o' output file option, argument processing terminates without seeing the output option and the translated ratfor goes to the default stdout rather than the temporary '.f' file.
------
>How-To-Repeat:
See description.
>Fix:
Of course, I can easily change argument processing for the ratfor I'm using or use a different extension for my ratfor sources but I would prefer to have gcc revert to the argument order it used under gcc 2.95.
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: