https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80610
--- Comment #17 from Gustavo Hime <gustavo.hime at mpimet dot mpg.de> --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #12) Dear Jerry, Thank you for the feedback. For the record, I didn't say gfortran is crap, nor did I throw insults at it. At least I didn't mean to. Sorry if you misunderstood that. I wrote "any compiler/code that crashes is crap" to make a point of this not being "not a bug", as it was being blatantly ignored, to say the least. >Or, better yet, don't expand/initialize > the array at compile time. We should set some sort of global > constructor/iterator that gets finally executed at run time, but at compile > time, we know the value of any aspect of the array as a parameter with out > actually needing to expand it. I'm honestly surprised this is not how things are being done already. You might as well be calling the constructor for static instances of C++ classes at compile time. > Yes that will take some frontend magic and we have so few people to support > gfortran (for free remember) that we may not be able to get to it. I would be happy to help if you can show me a few of the ropes. I'm overworked as is, but (as I've already said before) gfortran is a much better alternative to either intel or nag, when it comes to development. When it comes to performance, intel is far superior, but that is a hard target to compete with. > I don't think the report is invalid at all. Again, thanks for the feedback and sorry for the misunderstanding. And to all the maintainers who shared in later on a more reasonable tone.
