RFC: future gfortran development and subversion

[Paul Thomas]

So, collecting together the response to last night's mail:

Status of PR 19292 metabug:-

> 5900 The penultimate entry says -
>
> I would like to propose that this bug be closed.  This is about as 
> good as it
> gets.  We should set up some automatic regression testing on LAPACK 
> from hence
> forth.

Let's close it then - how about it, one of you Lapack afficianados?

>
> 13939 Concerns ugly commas - do we want this?  If so, it can be done.
>
> 14067 The final comment is "The ICE is fixed, but this could still do 
> with a warning."
>
> 14994 SECNDS missing - I would say that this should be done. I have 
> used an interface to get round this one.

I will do this.

>
> 15234 libgfortran doesn't compile on Tru64 UNIX V4.0F - ??? 5.0 is no 
> problem with a gcc-3.x
>
> 16465 parser chokes with ffixed-line-length-7 - is this essential?
>
> 16580 hmmmmm, gfortran ICE on test g77.f-torture/execute/intrinsic77.f 
> is this a show stopper?
>
> 17737 ICE when variable appears in two data statements - invalid code.

I'll put this on my TODO list.

>
> 18026 boz initialization of REALs fails.  Penultimate comment "
> I've removed the "reject-valid" keyward because the code is not valid
> Fortran 95.  From section 5.2.10, we have:"
>
> 18737 ICE on invalid use of external keyword - this should be fixed.

It is on my personal TODO list, I'll move it to the top of the pile.

>
> 19425 Duplicate SAVE attribute problem - illegal f95 and questionable f77

Patch submitted (pinskia reply)

>
> 20441 -finit-local-zero is missing from gfortran - a useful legacy 
> requirement IMHO.
>
> 20811 gfortran include problem (regression from g77) - this should be 
> fixed.  A good tyro project.
>
> 21565 namelist in block data is illegal - I had better deal with this, 
> hadn't I?

On the TODO list.

>
> 22175 BYTE Type Statement - Last comment "We do have a patch adding 
> that enhancement."

Asher Langton has done it. (FX reply)

>
> 22244 dimension information is lost for multi-dimension array - 
> primarily gdb and optimization problem.
>
> 22282 loc intrinsic and %loc construction is not implemented in 
> gfortran - do-able but not a disaster.

Part of the Cray patch (FX reply) that Steve will commit next week-ish.

>
> 22290 Optimize Assigned GOTO to cause error with -O1 or higher - we 
> seem to have a fix for this(?)

Patch here: (FW reply)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-10/msg00194.html

But has not been reviewed.           I will look at it next week but might need help/advice.

>
> 22359 fseek intrinsic appears to be unimplemented - should be done 
> (using C fseek?).

FX intends to do - timescale? + putc, getc and so on.

>
> 23060 %VAL construct not implemented - do we want this? If so, it is 
> do-able.
>
> 23912 MOD function requires same kind arguments - very fixable.
>
> I would say that this is a 33:33:33 mix of 
> fixed:do-able:ignorable/wrong - let's have a blitz on it.

On the basis of the replies, the proportions are more like 50:25:25.  If 
somebody wants to do my TODOs, feel welcome.  Are you back FengWang?  
You are the one saddled with legacy code and must, I suppose, have an 
interest in some of these?

Paul