Re: [Gomp-discuss] corrections to gompspecs.tex

[Melvin Hadasht]

Hi, Biagio,

> At that time, we decided to start from C because Fortran 77 did not look a 
> good investment for the future and F95 was far from being complete. Now 
> things have probably changed, and F95 could be a more suitable target for our 
> hack. In any case, Steven and Paul should be reading this mailing list, so 
> they can give their opinion on this topic.

Yes, I had a reply from Lars confirming that F95 parser is an easier barrier to 
overcome that C. 

> Final thought: the more technical people in this mailing list (I'm not one of 
> them) are heavily busy either with tree-ssa or with gcc- f95; probably we 
> will make no progress here until those projects are in a more advanced stage 
> or new enthusiastic and fresh forces join gomp.

I understand, especially that there is the focus on merging or not merging.
I am not a technical guy, but my plan is the following:

1. make libgfortran thread safe (I am starting with the IO part), 
2. help with libgomp, once the internals of gcc adapted to concurrent code
and in the meanwhile learn about gcc internals. I'll see then if can be of a 
more
help.

As soon as I have some code, I'll post it on the relevant ML.

-- 
Melvin Hadasht