------- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-04 09:09 ------- (In reply to comment #17) > Created an attachment (id=12735) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12735&action=view) [edit] > Compilable version of previous patch.
FX and Eric, Thanks for plugging the hole there. The attention that I can give to gfortran is very limited at present. I committed the FMOD patch, under the impression that the library had been fixed across the board. Since then, I have been more or less continuously on the road. I am curious as to why the test in the original patch, for the presence of the builtin, does not work. In principle, it should furnish the old tree-ssa version of MOD. Would it not be an idea to apply the C99 condition there? Regards Paul PS As for breaking the compiler on a regular basis; there was a lot that was fundamentally wrong with it that is now fixed - the trend is upwards, even if there are occasional 'reverses'. Two consistent causes of these reverses are (i) the range of platforms an (ii) the fact that the testsuite is not a systematic regurgitation of the F95 standard. (i) is, of course, a big plus for gcc and we should try to be mindful of it. However, we part-time volunteers have relatively limited resources and rely on PRs like this one coming in as quickly as possible. On (ii), we have no effort to do the equivalent of the NIST suite for F77, on which gfortran is tested regularly. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29810
