http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #11 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Wed Mar 26 20:39:42 2014
New Revision: 208852
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=208852&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR fortran/34928
* fortran.texi: Document Vo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Bud,
Will the following patch be good enough before closing this PR as WONTFIX?
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi2014-01-04 15:51:42.0 +0100
+++ gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi2014-02
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #9 from Bud Davis ---
I completely support closing this PR with a note in the documentation.
On shared memory mini computers of a bygone era, it was common to map the
common blocks to a specific memory address, and then more than one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Bud,
>
> What was the purpose of this construct?
> What is the valid way to replace it?
Should I close again this PR as WONTFIX to get an answer?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Bud,
What was the purpose of this construct?
What is the valid way to replace it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> As the reporter of this enhancement request, I think it is something
> that should be left open.
>
> Low priority, but this was a 'feature' of some f77 compilers in the past.
G77 does compile the t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #5 from Bud Davis ---
As the reporter of this enhancement request, I think it is something that
should be left open.
Low priority, but this was a 'feature' of some f77 compilers in the past.
Even if no-one ever adds this functional
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34928
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
No activity for over three years. I'll close it as WONTFIX in a few days if
nobody care anymore.
--- Comment #3 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-09 19:28 ---
Since PR35037 we can have VOLATILE variables in COMMON blocks. But VOLATILE
COMMON blocks are still unsupported (gcc version 4.6.0 20100509 (experimental)
(GCC)). Demand is low, besides this PR, there's nothing in th
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Summary|volatile does not accept a |Extensi
11 matches
Mail list logo
