This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/39626] Correctly implement details of Fortran 2008 BLOCK construct
- From: "domob at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 29 Sep 2009 07:48:57 -0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/39626] Correctly implement details of Fortran 2008 BLOCK construct
- References: <bug-39626-16338@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-29 07:48 -------
Committed my patch linked above. This implements "basic" BLOCK support (what I
as a user would reasonably expect it to behave) but misses a lot of finer
details; I'll keep the PR open for those.
See my mailing list message for more information, but what I've got in mind for
still missing stuff:
* handle VOLATILE and ASYNCHRONOUS as the draft standard mentions
* implement the clause requiring SAVE to not reference a common-name
* do more stuff with regards to 'construct entities' rather than "ordinary
variables", for instance the IMPLICIT handling Richard Maine mentioned in his
c.l.f post which is also the XFAIL'ed test-case block_7.f08
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Fortran 2008: Implement |Correctly implement details
|BLOCK construct |of Fortran 2008 BLOCK
| |construct
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39626