| Message ID | 20140208210723.A71A8104@mailhost.lps.ens.fr |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 10:07:23PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > Is the following patch OK? > > Dominique > > 2014-02-08 Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> > > PR fortran/34928 > * fortran/gfortran.texi: Document Volatile COMMON as not > suppoerted. s/suppoerted/supported > --- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi 2014-01-04 15:51:42.000000000 +0100 > +++ gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi 2014-02-03 15:33:50.000000000 +0100 > @@ -1990,6 +1990,7 @@ code that uses them running with the GNU > @c * CARRIAGECONTROL, DEFAULTFILE, DISPOSE and RECORDTYPE I/O specifiers:: > @c * Omitted arguments in procedure call:: > * Alternate complex function syntax:: > +* Volatile COMMON blocks:: > @end menu > > > @@ -2184,6 +2185,18 @@ extensions. @command{gfortran} accepts > common, but not the former. > > > +@node Volatile COMMON blocks > +@subsection Volatile @code{COMMON} blocks > +@cindex @code{VOLATILE} > +@cindex @code{COMMON} > + > +Some Fortran compilers, including @command{g77}, let the user declare > +@code{COMMON} with the @code{VOLATILE} attribute. This is > +invalid standard Fortran 77/90/95/2003/2008 syntax and is not I would remove 77/90/95/2003/2008. > +supported by @command{gfortran}. Note that @command{gfortran} accepts > +VOLATILE variables in COMMON blocks since revision 4.3. With these minor changes, looks fine to me. I can't remember. Do you have commit privilege? If not, why? You've certainly proven yourself with your attention to bugs and testing.
> I can't remember. Do you have commit privilege? No. > If not, why? Probably because I did not asked for it explicitly. I have only hinted a couple time that I have the FSF papers signed. I'll do the changes. Thanks for the quick review, Dominique
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 10:28:24PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > > I can't remember. Do you have commit privilege? > > No. > > > If not, why? > > Probably because I did not asked for it explicitly. > I have only hinted a couple time that I have the FSF papers > signed. > I suppose we can fix that issue. I forget the procedure on getting 'write after approval' access. I'll ask on IRC later (need to re-install xchat).
2014-02-08 22:47 GMT+01:00 Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>: > On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 10:28:24PM +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: >> > I can't remember. Do you have commit privilege? >> >> No. >> >> > If not, why? >> >> Probably because I did not asked for it explicitly. >> I have only hinted a couple time that I have the FSF papers >> signed. > > I suppose we can fix that issue. I forget the procedure on > getting 'write after approval' access. From http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html#policies: "The steering committee or a well-established GCC maintainer (including reviewers) can approve for write access any person with GNU copyright assignment papers in place and known to submit good patches." That sounds like approval of any Fortran reviewer should be sufficient (which includes Steve and myself). I definitely support Dominique's approval as a write-after-approval contributor. Dominique, please add yourself to the corresponding section of the MAINTAINERS file! Cheers, Janus
Janus Weil wrote: > 2014-02-08 22:47 GMT+01:00 Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>: >> I suppose we can fix that issue. I forget the procedure on getting >> 'write after approval' access. > >From http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html#policies: Towards the top is the following link: https://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi Dominique: Simply fill out that form and choose a sponsor (Steve, Janus or me, choose one). Tobias, who hopes that he has now again a bit more time to work on GCC.
--- ../_clean/gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi 2014-01-04 15:51:42.000000000 +0100 +++ gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi 2014-02-03 15:33:50.000000000 +0100 @@ -1990,6 +1990,7 @@ code that uses them running with the GNU @c * CARRIAGECONTROL, DEFAULTFILE, DISPOSE and RECORDTYPE I/O specifiers:: @c * Omitted arguments in procedure call:: * Alternate complex function syntax:: +* Volatile COMMON blocks:: @end menu @@ -2184,6 +2185,18 @@ extensions. @command{gfortran} accepts common, but not the former. +@node Volatile COMMON blocks +@subsection Volatile @code{COMMON} blocks +@cindex @code{VOLATILE} +@cindex @code{COMMON} + +Some Fortran compilers, including @command{g77}, let the user declare +@code{COMMON} with the @code{VOLATILE} attribute. This is +invalid standard Fortran 77/90/95/2003/2008 syntax and is not +supported by @command{gfortran}. Note that @command{gfortran} accepts +VOLATILE variables in COMMON blocks since revision 4.3. + + @c --------------------------------------------------------------------- @c Mixed-Language Programming