https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94228
--- Comment #6 from Mark Paris <markwayne1969 at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5) > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:24:10PM +0000, markwayne1969 at gmail dot com > wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94228 > > > > --- Comment #4 from Mark Paris <markwayne1969 at gmail dot com> --- > > (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > > > No. Newer C, as opposed to older C, uses // for a comment. > > > Fortran uses // as the concatenation operator. Run this > > > through a cpp pre-processor. > > > > > > character(len=80) :: name = 'john ' // 'Doe' > > > print *, name > > > end > > > > > > ~/work/bin/cpp a.F > > > # 1 "a.F" > > > # 1 "<built-in>" > > > # 1 "<command-line>" > > > # 1 "a.F" > > > character(len=80) :: name = 'john ' > > > print *, name > > > end > > > > Thank you for your kind reply. I understand that this is an issue > of disparate use of the same operator, '//' in C and Fortran. > > > > Is it possible to have cpp recognize the different uses of // by, > > say, the file name extension of the source being processed? > > Sure. Anything is possible if someone puts in the time to > write a Fortran specific preprocessor. AFAIK, none of the > current diminishing number of gfortran contributors is > working a new preprocessor. > > > Links to information about gcc development for this specific > > possible feature would be appreciated. > > I don't know of any gfortran preprocessor projects. You are > more then welcomed to clone the git repository and start > such a project. Having new gfortran contributors would be > healthy for gfortran's future. Thank you, again for your reply. It's not exactly the information I was looking for -- perhaps you're not the right person to ask. If not, you might be able to point me to the correct group. I was asking whether you knew of any reason that the existing cpp couldn't be adjusted to handle the '//' disparity with a filename extension dependency. If this is possible, then it seems like a minor revision, as opposed to what you appear to have in mind of writing "a Fortran specific preprocessor," which sounds like a prohibitive undertaking. Thanks again.
