This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: UNMASK() intrinsic?
- From: Daniel Franke <franke dot daniel at gmail dot com>
- To: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:38:51 +0100
- Subject: Re: UNMASK() intrinsic?
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=DzkcmbUbEFhkpsRShsazzaUcfN5l0+CsuKRR1HD/6L0M1Hcy0rsqGoJ3C681XRMpIFAtZxeVDbrnUIgP6kTrw1WimSMMvzQYtR3zwfKyYOT1leUTkf2zOe+3Mta+siU4l7eieJkmSnBUIbko+bRdgxiwUIml1wCDvjufs6WuwYY=
- References: <459DAB17.5090806@codesourcery.com> <20070105013449.GA42064@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <459DAD61.3010008@codesourcery.com>
On Friday 05 January 2007 02:44, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 05:34:15PM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
> >> The intrinsic.texi documentation has an entry for an UNMASK() intrinsic,
> >> but has no documentation for it. I can't find any trace of this
> >> intrinsic in intrinsic.c or iresolve.c. Am I missing something, or is
> >> this simply a phantom that doesn't really exist?
> >
> > Is this suppose to be UMASK?
>
> That would be my best guess for where it came from, though there is also
> a documentation entry for UMASK. Unless someone says that I'm missing
> something, I'll probably go ahead and delete the UNMASK entry in my next
> intrinsics.texi patch.
Brooks,
this may be a relict from my attempt to assemble a full list of intrinsics a
while ago. I don't know where I got that from, probably a transcription error
from umask. Please, get rid of it.
Regards
Daniel