PING (now in plain text mode so that the lists will accept the
message, hopefully. $#% gmail improvements.)
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Janne Blomqvist
blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Janne Blomqvist
blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Updated patch
Janne Blomqvist wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Janne Blomqvist
blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Updated patch which in addition does the above transformations as
well.
.. and here is the actual patch (thanks Bernhard!)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-03/msg00108.html
Thanks for
Le 08/04/2013 10:34, Tobias Burnus a écrit :
Janne Blomqvist wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Janne Blomqvist
blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Updated patch which in addition does the above transformations as
well.
.. and here is the actual patch (thanks Bernhard!)
On Mar 21 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
now that the Fortran frontend is C++ we can use the primitive bool
type instead of inventing our own.
Well, C99's bool (_Bool) was already used before. ...
Er, that is making a serious mistake or, at least, running the risk of
one. C++'s bool
N.M. Maclaren n...@cam.ac.uk writes:
That is another matter entirely. The code of gcc/gfortran is supposed
to be compilable with other compilers, and it is foolish to make
unnecessary assumptions by relying on undefined behaviour.
The simple facts are that C++ does NOT define bool to be
On Mar 22 2013, Miles Bader wrote:
That is another matter entirely. The code of gcc/gfortran is supposed
to be compilable with other compilers, and it is foolish to make
unnecessary assumptions by relying on undefined behaviour.
The simple facts are that C++ does NOT define bool to be
N.M. Maclaren wrote:
On Mar 22 2013, Miles Bader wrote:
That is another matter entirely. The code of gcc/gfortran is supposed
to be compilable with other compilers, and it is foolish to make
unnecessary assumptions by relying on undefined behaviour.
The simple facts are that C++ does NOT
On Mar 22 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
The front end and the backend are both compiled with the same compiler
and in the same binary. Even without bootstrapping, trying to compile
them with different compilers, will require some heavy editing of
makefiles. Thus, it seems to be extremely
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Janne Blomqvist
blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the prompt review!
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Am 19.03.2013 13:15, schrieb Janne Blomqvist:
now that the Fortran frontend is C++ we can use the primitive
On Mar 19 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Am 19.03.2013 13:15, schrieb Janne Blomqvist:
now that the Fortran frontend is C++ we can use the primitive bool
type instead of inventing our own.
Well, C99's bool (_Bool) was already used before. ...
Er, that is making a serious mistake or, at least,
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
On Mar 19 2013, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Am 19.03.2013 13:15, schrieb Janne Blomqvist:
now that the Fortran frontend is C++ we can use the primitive bool
type instead of inventing our own.
Well, C99's bool (_Bool) was already used before. ...
Thanks for the prompt review!
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Am 19.03.2013 13:15, schrieb Janne Blomqvist:
now that the Fortran frontend is C++ we can use the primitive bool
type instead of inventing our own.
Well, C99's bool (_Bool) was already used
Am 19.03.2013 13:15, schrieb Janne Blomqvist:
now that the Fortran frontend is C++ we can use the primitive bool
type instead of inventing our own.
Well, C99's bool (_Bool) was already used before. The advantage of
FAILURE and SUCCESS is that they immediately make clear whether some
call was
13 matches
Mail list logo
