--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-03-04 04:46
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
> Just to be clear, what exactly do you feel are the concrete practical
> advantages to -ff2c?
(Sorry, I mean -fno-f2c. The practical advanta
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-03-04 04:44
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I agree with you that -ff2c should imply -fsecond-underscore. I don't
> agr
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-03-03 21:49
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> BTW I will also propose a patch to make -fno-second-underscore the
> default, once t
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-02-23 23:17
---
Subject: Re: cannot mix C and Fortran I/O
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de wrote:
> Add "fflush(stdout);" at the end of cio.c, and things work
> as expected.
This is a wo
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-02-23 20:46
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> And gfortran is totally new front-end, written from scratch.
Obviously. That does
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-02-23 20:44
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Well chaning to be more target's C like (because that is what gfortran
> us
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-02-23 20:28
---
Subject: Re: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
g77
I confirm that it works when you compile arg1.f with -fno-f2c:
g77 -fno-f2c -c arg1.f
gfortran arg1tst.f arg1.o -o arg1tst
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-01-18 23:15
---
Subject: Re: bogus warning about complex "integer" types
from typedef
Okay, I guess I see what you mean. "double" in "double _Complex" is
arguably not a "type", but rat
--- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org 2005-01-18 22:56
---
Subject: Re: bogus warning about complex "integer" types
from typedef
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>> typedef double R;
>> typedef R _Complex C;
>
>
