On 08/26/2016 05:06 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
--- snip ---
So, I've come up the following. We now need to debate whether
Dominiq's observations mean that C402 does not apply to named
constant.
See my comment in the PR. The standard gives the explicit way to accomplish what
the user wants to
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:28:25PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 26/08/2016 à 20:27, Steve Kargl a écrit :
> > Here are two possible patches for PR fortran/77391. The first
> > patch treats the invalid code as a GNU Fortran extension as
> > gfortran current accepts the invalid code.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:28:25PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 26/08/2016 à 20:27, Steve Kargl a écrit :
> > Here are two possible patches for PR fortran/77391. The first
> > patch treats the invalid code as a GNU Fortran extension as
> > gfortran current accepts the invalid code.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:28:25PM +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 26/08/2016 à 20:27, Steve Kargl a écrit :
> > Here are two possible patches for PR fortran/77391. The first
> > patch treats the invalid code as a GNU Fortran extension as
> > gfortran current accepts the invalid code.
Hello,
Le 26/08/2016 à 20:27, Steve Kargl a écrit :
Here are two possible patches for PR fortran/77391. The first
patch treats the invalid code as a GNU Fortran extension as
gfortran current accepts the invalid code. The second patch
enforces the standard. As I think gfortran should
Hi Steve,
I am strongly for the enforcement of the standard. Please apply patch #2.
Cheers
Paul
On 26 August 2016 at 20:27, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> Here are two possible patches for PR fortran/77391. The first
> patch treats the invalid code as a GNU Fortran
Here are two possible patches for PR fortran/77391. The first
patch treats the invalid code as a GNU Fortran extension as
gfortran current accepts the invalid code. The second patch
enforces the standard. As I think gfortran should encourage
standard conformance, I am inclined to commit the