On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 07:23:53PM +0200, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> Frankly, I would accept the patch with the proviso that:
> (i) It is hidden behand a gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, "...;
> (ii) The feature is set in conflict with the new features that FX
> mentions, especially coarrays
Dear Jim, FX and Jerry,
Frankly, I would accept the patch with the proviso that:
(i) It is hidden behand a gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, "...;
(ii) The feature is set in conflict with the new features that FX
mentions, especially coarrays and bind C; and
(iii) As FX says, a good look at the te
>> All in all I’m skeptical of adding even more old language extensions with
>> little demand when we have a hard time filling up gaps in the standard. Each
>> addition adds to maintainance load, especially as they might not interact
>> too well with more modern features. (For example coarrays o
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:58:41PM +0200, FX wrote:
> > I think I appreciate what you are trying to do here. I don't intend to
> > sound
> > negative here, but if the keyword AUTOMATIC does nothing
>
> The testcase given is not an example of useful AUTOMATIC. I think it is
> meant to be used to
> I think I appreciate what you are trying to do here. I don't intend to sound
> negative here, but if the keyword AUTOMATIC does nothing
The testcase given is not an example of useful AUTOMATIC. I think it is meant
to be used to oppose an implied SAVE attribute, e.g. a variable with explicit
i
On 09/24/2015 04:52 AM, Jim MacArthur wrote:
> Hi all, I'm following up on some old work my colleague Mark Doffman did to
> try
> and get support for the AUTOMATIC keyword into trunk. In the enclosed patch
> I've addressed the problem with it accepting 'automatic' outside -std=gnu (it
> will no
