------- Comment #18 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2006-01-08 16:37 ------- Subject: Re: [meta-bug] g77 features lacking in gfortran
On Sun, Jan 08, 2006 at 10:41:15AM -0000, malitzke at metronets dot com wrote: > > one had called your work a piece of excrement. Excrement (with some minor > variation in spelling) comes from Latin and means vernacular M.... in Spain, > Portugal, France, Italy and S... in England, Germany, Sweden. At least per > Webster excremental is the adjective pertaining to excrement. Pofessor Emerita > C. Froese Fischer (Computer Science Vandebilt University) is the principal > author of the MCHF Atomic Structure Package. Acoording to Google there are > about 139 thousand citations and authorships to her credit. The MCHF package > has about 1.5 megabytes of source code. I never met the lady as student, > collaborator or otherwise. Calling her work even only by clearly erroneous > association excrement is equivalent to calling GCC a piece of excrement. Happy > sulking to you all! No one called Fischer's life work crap. The phrase was used to describe a piece of code in PR 18540. Fischer's code has the same bug, and somehow you infer that we, the gfortran developers, have called all of Fischer's work crap. If MCHF is in fact 1.5 MB of source code, and this is the only bug, well I suppose Fischer should thank us, the gfortran developers, for debugging her code. > adjective. The 105 label in my submission precedes the first executable > statement while the pertinent label in the ealier submission (which never > turned up when I searched for various combinations of GTO and fortran) clearly > comes after the first executable statement. This makes that "excremental" case > a clear violation of 8.1.1.2. I've already explain to you why the code is nonconforming. To recap, using NOTE 8.3 from the Final Committee Draft of the Fortran 95 standard. NOTE 8.3 For example, if a statement inside the block has a statement label, a GO TO statement using that label is only allowed to appear in the same block. > To Mr. Kargl I would counsel moderation is the the of the "Imperial" we and > perhaps practice some more reading specifications. His interpretation of "is" > and "shall be" in relation the 8.1.1.2 clearly shows his lack of experience. If you're concerned with my ability to read the Fortran 95 specification, you can revert all of the patches I've committed. These are documented in ChangeLog. You'll then need to revert the patches of other committers that were reviewed and OK by me. If you want expert opinion on the code in PR 25705 because my interpretation upsets you, then I suggest that you send it to comp.lang.fortran. Several former and current members of J3 answer questions on c.l.f. (J3 is the group of people who actually wrote the standard.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19292
