--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-29 07:43 ---
Subject: Bug 39626
Author: domob
Date: Tue Sep 29 07:42:42 2009
New Revision: 152266
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=152266
Log:
2009-09-29 Daniel Kraft
PR fortran/39626
* gf
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-28 14:49 ---
For a "basically workig" (i.e. without some of the finer details and ugly
corner cases, but handling all I would "reasonably" expect as user) patch, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-09/msg00255.html.
--
http
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-10 19:10 ---
See also
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/ee95b68bf0658433#
Especially about the fine points raised by Richard Maine
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39626
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-30 10:00 ---
I'm not sure it needs really that much changes... After all, the semantics can
probably be simulated completely via replacing the BLOCK-constructs with
contained procedures that are called where the BLOCK originally w
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-03 16:43 ---
This feature requires a substantial re-work of symbol handling in gfortran
(make it block based).
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
