[PATCH, fortran] Revival of AUTOMATIC patch

Jim MacArthur jim.macarthur@codethink.co.uk
Fri Sep 25 11:26:00 GMT 2015


On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:58:41PM +0200, FX wrote:
> > I think I appreciate what you are trying to do here.  I don't intend to sound
> > negative here, but if the keyword AUTOMATIC does nothing
> 
> The testcase given is not an example of useful AUTOMATIC. I think it is 
> meant to be used to oppose an implied SAVE attribute, e.g. a variable with 
> explicit initialization or the BIND attribute. Indeed, in the case of 
> implied SAVE by initialization, there it is a little bit more work because 
> you have to move the initialization to the executable part of the code. But 
> that’s not impossible.

The automatic_1 test case was only intended to demonstrate that AUTOMATIC has 
an effect, not a useful one. I don't have the option of being able to 
rewrite all our source code, so I am trying to make a compiler which mimics 
some older proprietary ones; I understand that these features may not be 
useful to someone writing new Fortran code.

> 
> All in all I’m skeptical of adding even more old language extensions with 
> little demand when we have a hard time filling up gaps in the standard. Each 
> addition adds to maintainance load, especially as they might not interact 
> too well with more modern features. (For example coarrays or BIND attribute, 
> which were not around when AUTOMATIC was in use.)
> 
> I don’t find any request for this feature in the whole bugzilla database.

That's understandable. We'll maintain this feature in our own delta. I felt it 
was in the spirit of open source to offer it in case it was useful.

Thanks for taking the time to review it.

Jim



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list