awarzynski added inline comments.
================
Comment at: flang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:268
+ // pre-processed inputs.
+ .Case("f95", Language::Fortran)
+ .Case("f95-cpp-input", Language::Fortran)
----------------
ekieri wrote:
> awarzynski wrote:
> > rovka wrote:
> > > ekieri wrote:
> > > > Is there a reason to change from "f90" to "f95"? In my understanding,
> > > > "f90" is more idiomatic for free-form fortran of any standard >= 90.
> > > At least for `gfortran`, `f90` doesn't seem to be supported, only `f77`,
> > > `f77-cpp-input`, `f95`, `f95-cpp-input` are.
> > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/master/gcc/doc/invoke.texi#:~:text=f77%20%20f77%2Dcpp%2Dinput%20f95%20%20f95%2Dcpp%2Dinput
> > >
> > > Note that these are not file extensions, but values for the `-x` option.
> > > Note that these are not file extensions, but values for the -x option.
> > Indeed, thanks Diana! For `clangDriver,` the available values for Fortran
> > are defined [[
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/5fee1799f4d8da59c251e2d04172fc2f387cbe54/clang/include/clang/Driver/Types.def#L80-L81
> > | here ]].
> Thank you both! This still goes against my intuition, but I must admit we
> should prioritise compatibility with gfortran above my intuition :)
> This still goes against my intuition,
And mine :)
> we should prioritise compatibility with gfortran
That and with what's already in Clang ;-)
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127207/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D127207
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
