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

List:       gcc-fortran
Subject:    Re: STRUCTURE and RECORD construct addtion
From:       Steve Kargl <sgk () troutmask ! apl ! washington ! edu>
Date:       2013-12-02 16:54:30
Message-ID: 20131202165430.GA41635 () troutmask ! apl ! washington ! edu
[Download RAW message or body]

From a historical standpoint, there has always been more work
in implementing features mandated by the Fortran standards 
than available volunteer time.  In the past, it seemed to be
better to encourage users to update their code to conforming
Fortran rather than taking on the the complications and
future maintenance of STRUCTURE/RECORD.

Most of the extensions offered by gfortran provide backwards
compatibility with g77.  The only entensions that I can recall
that aren't due to g77 compatibility are Cray pointers and
OpenMP.

-- 
steve

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 10:15:52AM -0600, Mark Doffman wrote:
> 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.
> >>
> >
> >
> >

-- 
Steve
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]