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 <domi...@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. -- Steve