On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 04:54:54PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 11/04/2014 04:41 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > It is unclear to me from reading the diff whether this patch > > cause gfortran on ptx to knowingly violate the fortran standard. > > If the answer is "yes, this patch causes gfortran on ptx to > > violate the standard", then the patch is IMHO unacceptable. > > I don't have the Fortran standard, but I assume that missing pieces in > the library would be a violation. However, the alternative is no Fortran > (library) support at all, which doesn't seem like an improvement. The > target simply does not allow full language support, even for something > like C. > > Note that the intention is not to support Fortran (or any other > language) directly targetting ptx code. The only way it's supposed to be > used is as an accelerator for OpenACC offloading. >
I see. I get nervous when a patch appears that throws away a part of the runtime library. There are typically unintended consequences, which then becomes a support issue. -- Steve
