This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR34928 - Extension: volatile common blocks
- From: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- To: Dominique Dhumieres <dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr>
- Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org, bdavis at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 13:20:55 -0800
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR34928 - Extension: volatile common blocks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140208210723 dot A71A8104 at mailhost dot lps dot ens dot fr>
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 10:07:23PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> Is the following patch OK?
>
> Dominique
>
> 2014-02-08 Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr>
>
> PR fortran/34928
> * fortran/gfortran.texi: Document Volatile COMMON as not
> suppoerted.
s/suppoerted/supported
> --- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi 2014-01-04 15:51:42.000000000 +0100
> +++ gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi 2014-02-03 15:33:50.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1990,6 +1990,7 @@ code that uses them running with the GNU
> @c * CARRIAGECONTROL, DEFAULTFILE, DISPOSE and RECORDTYPE I/O specifiers::
> @c * Omitted arguments in procedure call::
> * Alternate complex function syntax::
> +* Volatile COMMON blocks::
> @end menu
>
>
> @@ -2184,6 +2185,18 @@ extensions. @command{gfortran} accepts
> common, but not the former.
>
>
> +@node Volatile COMMON blocks
> +@subsection Volatile @code{COMMON} blocks
> +@cindex @code{VOLATILE}
> +@cindex @code{COMMON}
> +
> +Some Fortran compilers, including @command{g77}, let the user declare
> +@code{COMMON} with the @code{VOLATILE} attribute. This is
> +invalid standard Fortran 77/90/95/2003/2008 syntax and is not
I would remove 77/90/95/2003/2008.
> +supported by @command{gfortran}. Note that @command{gfortran} accepts
> +VOLATILE variables in COMMON blocks since revision 4.3.
With these minor changes, looks fine to me.
I can't remember. Do you have commit privilege? If not, why?
You've certainly proven yourself with your attention to bugs
and testing.
--
Steve