Re: Desire to allocate bit in DT_PARM bitmask for DEC FORMAT compatibility purposes

2018-03-21 Thread Jeff Law
On 03/21/2018 12:38 PM, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 03/21/2018 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:41:25PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: This is documented in the old manuals from DEC and I've found

Re: Desire to allocate bit in DT_PARM bitmask for DEC FORMAT compatibility purposes

2018-03-21 Thread Janne Blomqvist
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 7:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 03/21/2018 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:41:25PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >>> This is documented in the old manuals from DEC and I've found >>> essentially the same documentation in Oracle/Sun's

Re: Desire to allocate bit in DT_PARM bitmask for DEC FORMAT compatibility purposes

2018-03-21 Thread Jeff Law
On 03/21/2018 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:41:25PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >> This is documented in the old manuals from DEC and I've found >> essentially the same documentation in Oracle/Sun's current documentation >> as well as old MIPS documentation. I have a

Re: Desire to allocate bit in DT_PARM bitmask for DEC FORMAT compatibility purposes

2018-03-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 12:41:25PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > This is documented in the old manuals from DEC and I've found > essentially the same documentation in Oracle/Sun's current documentation > as well as old MIPS documentation. I have a high degree of confidence > it exists in IBM's

Desire to allocate bit in DT_PARM bitmask for DEC FORMAT compatibility purposes

2018-03-20 Thread Jeff Law
Codethink has several more changes that improve gfortran's ability to handle legacy codebases, particularly those which rely on DEC extensions. Most are strictly compiler side issues. However, one touches on the runtime. Specifically, as an extension, DEC Fortran allows omitting the width in