[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc-fortran
Subject:    Re: STRUCTURE and RECORD construct addtion
From:       Mark Doffman <mark.doffman () codethink ! co ! uk>
Date:       2013-12-02 16:15:52
Message-ID: 529CB238.1090405 () codethink ! co ! uk
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks both of you for the very clear and quick reply.

I understand that if no investigation has been done
in to interactions with the standard this could be
a big and potentially impossible task.

Thanks

Mark

On 12/02/2013 10:03 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Nick beat me to it by a few minutes!
>
> Such a patch would not be welcome by me either.  Convert to standard
> conforming code rather than potentially wrecking the compiler.  After
> all, the gfortran documentation points out that there is one to one
> mapping between the two.
>
> Sorry but this is not going to happen.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
> On 2 December 2013 16:36, N.M. Maclaren <nmm1@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 2 2013, Mark Doffman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The gfortran documentation states that the STRUCTURE and RECORD
>>> keywords are unsupported extensions.
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/STRUCTURE-and-RECORD.html
>>>
>>> As they have been explicitly mentioned as unsupported I'd like to
>>> know if there are any specific reasons for that. Do you know of
>>> any roadblocks to adding these to the gfortran complier?
>>
>>
>> Other than that there has been little or no design work checking on
>> interactions with standard Fortran, and so nobody knows how many
>> gotchas, incompatibilities and just plain bugs they would introduce?
>>
>> In full, they are also software engineering and portability horrors.
>>
>>
>>> Would a patch to do so be well received?
>>
>>
>> Not by people like me, for sure.  VAX Fortran is dead - let's move on.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Nick Maclaren.
>>
>
>
>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]