------- Comment #14 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de 2006-01-08 02:30 ------- Subject: Re: [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran
malitzke at metronets dot com wrote: > ------- Comment #8 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2006-01-07 20:30 > ------- > Not all of the underlying are just g77 features. Some like 18540/25705 are > legal f90, f95, f06 code an just calling them "excremental" is unprofessional. > This diminishes the 90% plus of dedicated people working on GCC. If something > is clearly impoosible to continue as part of fortran then an effort to change > the specs should be made. I find this very offensive. As you will have noticed we have a problem report about this, which is not closed as "WONTFIX", and thus we're definitely not just calling this feature "excremental". Also, you're saying that Paul Thomas (who wrote the original bug report where this wording is used) is unprofessional and undedicated. The latter is easily disproved by taking a look at the ChangeLog. In fact, everybody working on gfortran is doing so out of dedication, as noone of us is getting paid for this work, and everybody has access to commercial compilers.</rant> This construct in non-standard for the reasons quoted by Steve and and so far the people working on gfortran have considered the importance of this bug second to the other bugs they were fixing. If somebody cares enough he may bring forth a patch, which -- provided sufficient quality -- will be integrated, and we will be one step closer to a complete Fortran 66 compiler. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19292
