On 7/11/19 6:16 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote: > > On 10/07/2019 17:20, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> On 10 July 2019 17:52:40 CEST, Steve Kargl >> <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 02:50:47PM +0100, Mark Eggleston wrote: >>>> The attached patch treats the intrinsic SIGN in the same way as MOD >>> and >>>> DIM as it has the same arguments. >>>> >>>> Tested using make -j 8 check-fortran on x86_64 >>>> >>>> Conditional compilation using #ifdef __GFC_REAL_16__ has been >>> employed >>>> where appropriate in the test cases so should be OK on platforms >>> without >>>> REAL(16). >>>> >>>> Change logs: >>>> >>>> gcc/fortran >>>> >>>> Mark Eggleston <mark.eggles...@codethink.com> >>>> >>>> PR fortran/89286 >>>> * check.c (gfc_check_sign): Deleted. >> ChangeLog has to be in present tense per convention. >> >>>> * intrinsic.c (add_functions): Call add_sym_2 with gfc_check_a_p >>>> instead of gfc_check_sign for "sign". >>>> * intrinsic.h: Remove declaration of gfc_check_sign. >>>> * iresolve.c (gfc_resolve_sign): Check for largest kind of the >>> actual >>>> arguments and convert the smaller. Set return kind to be the >>> largest. >>>> * simplify.c (gfc_simplify_sign): Use the largest kind of the >>> actual >>>> arguments for return >>>> * intrinsic.texi: Add GNU extension notes for return value to >>> SIGN. >>>> gcc/testsuite >>>> >>>> Mark Eggleston <mark.eggles...@codethink.com> >>>> >>>> PR fortran/89240 >>>> * gfortran.dg/sign_gnu_extension_1.f90: New test. >>>> * gfortran.dg/sign_gnu_extension_2.f90: New test. >>>> * gfortran.dg/pr78619.f90: Check for "must have" instead of >>> "must be". >>>> If OK please can someone commit as I do not have the privileges. >>>> >>> We really need to get you commit access to the tree. >>> >>> I also am not a fan of this type of change. Having spent the >>> last few days working on fixing BOZ to conform to F2018, I'm >>> finding all sorts of undocumented "extensions". Personally, >>> I think gfortran should be moving towards the standard by >>> deprecating of these types of extensions. > > I agree. > > I think that -std=gnu should not be the default, if gnu extensions are > required you have to ask for them. > >> At least make them explicit under explicit extension or at least >> -legacy or whatever its called. >> >> thanks, > > I agree, at the moment the GNU extension is silently supported by DIM > and MOD So if Mark was to put this behavior behind the -fdec or whatever the appropriate switch is, could this move forward?
jeff
