[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.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list