Reverted my ISO C BINDING branch changes.

[Steve Kargl]

On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 12:21:50PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thursday 28 December 2006 00:15, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > Apologies for the code churn. :(.
> >
> > I reverted revisions 120187, 120190, and 120209, which are a misguided
> > attempted at cleaning up the ISO C BINDING patch and other inconsistencies
> > in the source code.
> >
> > After spending 4 days of looking at the gfortran source code, it
> > became painfully apparent that there are a number of atrocious
> > formatting issues (IMHO).  Some of these problems were carried over
> > from the initial import of the g95 source code.  Others are probably
> > due to each submitters personal coding style, which differs from the
> > GNU coding standard.
> 
> It looked like a good cleanup that is going to have to be done
> sooner or later.  So I don't see what was misguided about your
> patches.

I agree with the need for the cleanup and I plan to do it in trunk.
This is mostly whitespace issues, misformatted comments, typos, and
long lines.  Due to the inconsistencies within a file, I've found
that neither GNU indent(1) nor FreeBSD indent(1) can fix the files,
so one needs to read each file.  On the bright side, I've found
one bug (search for buffer[60]) and can eliminated some of the
one line functions (see gfc_terminal_width).

> IIUC one of the reasons to put the ISO C bindings patch on the
> branch, was to clean up the coding style issues.  Is there now
> a new plan to fix those issues?

The ISO C Binding (icb) patch if fairly large and violates many
of GNU Coding Standard guidelines.  If I incorporate the additional
cleanup changes on the icb branch, then it becomes extremely difficult
to do a diff between trunk and icb.

The hope is that an svnmerge of trunk into the icb branch will
bring over the cleanup and permit the ability to diff the sources.

-- 
Steve