https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jeff Hammond from comment #13)
> This is all fair. I try very hard to fix my own bugs and submit patches,
> but in this case I am wholly unqualified. I don't know the first thing
> about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #13 from Jeff Hammond ---
This is all fair. I try very hard to fix my own bugs and submit patches, but
in this case I am wholly unqualified. I don't know the first thing about
implementing a production compiler, or any compiler for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #11 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 06:03:00AM +, jeff.science at gmail dot com wrote:
>
> In short, "it's not in the standard, therefore it's fine to break user
> experience" seems pretty weak here. It's fine if yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jeff Hammond from comment #9)
> First, you will not accept the fusion of cpp+gfortran behavior as a feature
> request? Is there a reason other than you do not want to do it because you
> are al
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #9 from Jeff Hammond ---
First, you will not accept the fusion of cpp+gfortran behavior as a feature
request? Is there a reason other than you do not want to do it because you are
already busy?
Second, true, but that doesn't stop gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #7 from Jeff Hammond ---
And your "obvious workaround" is in fact not one because it changes the
behavior of gfortran for Fortran source code and breaks the build in another
way. And even if it did solve the problem, why not make it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
Jeff Hammond changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jeff Hammond from comment #3)
> Unfortunately, this does not change anything.
>
I saying gfortran defaults to that and you can use that option to cpp to get
the same behavior.
> > gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Hammond ---
Unfortunately, this does not change anything.
> gfortran-5 -traditional-cpp -I. -E source.F
# 1 "source.F"
# 1 ""
# 1 ""
# 1 "source.F"
C
C OLD SCHOOL COMMENTS
C
subroutine xyz(stuff)
implicit no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
*** Bug 67251 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67250
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
See the option -traditional-cpp.
14 matches
Mail list logo
