On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 8:19 AM Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I don't like the new keyword. Could we do "stdcomp" (for "standard compliant") > or something like that? When a keyword allows a question mark, I would even > add > that, i.e.. like "stdcomp?". Or when we like to go with interp then at least > add "std", i.e. "stdinterp". "interp" alone to me is too near to "interpreter" > and could collide with searches should there be an interpreter in the gcc > suite. > > Sorry, for the new way in the discussion.
We have need-bisection and other need-, so iff then maybe a need-stdchk for cases compliance is unclear? The fact that a testcase is (non-)compliant is also not telling anything about the bug reported, unlike rejects-valid or ice-on-invalid, so it does not help in bug searches. Richard. > - Andre > > On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 09:00:47 -0800 > Jerry D <jvdelis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2/9/25 1:07 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > > Hello world, > > > > > > looking at a few Fortran bug reports, I found some cases where > > > it was not clear if the program in question was standard-conforming > > > or not. I would propose to add a keyword for that, tentatively > > > called "interp". > > > > > > Comments? Suggestions for a different name? Should I just go ahead > > > and create it? > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > Thomas > > > > Your suggestion is reasonable and it happens often enough to be useful. > > It does not have to be an official interpretation needed necessarily. > > Sometimes we resolve these via discussion and comparison to other compilers. > > > > -- Jerry > > > -- > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
