4 ms·

Can’t compile with just a PDF file, though.

aw1621107 1y ago
Yes, compilers will take some time to implement the new standards. C23 seems to have decent support from a few compilers, with GCC leading the pack: https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/compiler_support/23.html https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/compiler_support/23.html gcobol supports (or at least aims to support?) COBOL 2023: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-15.1.0/gcobol/gcobol.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-15.1.0/gcobol/gcobol.html. Presumably there are other compilers working on support as well. Intel's Fortran compiler and LFortran have partial support for Fortran 2023 (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/fortran-language-and-openmp-features-in-ifx.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t..., https://docs.lfortran.org/en/usage/ https://docs.lfortran.org/en/usage/). I'd guess that support both from these compilers and from other compilers (Flang?) would improve over time as well..
- pklausler 1y ago
  Flang does already support warnings for features that have breaking changes in F’2023.
  - aw1621107 1y ago
    Glad to hear it! Didn't turn up anything obvious in my brief search, but I was expecting some work towards newer standards at least.
    - pklausler 1y ago
      Why would you expect that? There are few incentives to work on features that nobody is using.
      - aw1621107 1y ago
        Because given the work needed to actually get a feature into the standard I'd assume there's at least some demand motivating the addition. I'd also be a bit hesitant about claiming that nobody is using said features. It's quite possible that the "new" feature is actually "just" a standardization of something that exists in practice. WG14 is hardly a stranger to that kind of thing, from what I understand; it wouldn't surprise me if something similar occurs for the Fortran/COBOL working groups as well.
        pklausler 1y ago
        That's a reasonable assumption, but it turns out to rarely be the case with WG5/SC22/J3. There are exceptions (like SIND, SINPI, &c.), but most new features in Fortran standards are committee inventions without prototypes, reference implementations, or official conformance test suites. This leads to incompatible implementations, and then lack of use in codes that need to be portable. It's a mess, really. I have a test suite of examples of this kind of thing that accumulated during the implementation of flang-new, in which it was a difficult task to figure out what portable Fortran really means in a way that's meaningful to users.
        aw1621107 1y ago
        I'll defer to your expertise here. If C++'s experience with similar situations is any indication it really does not seem like a fun spot to be in. Does make me curious how the dynamics of the Fortran/COBOL committees differs from that of the C/C++ committees.

Yes, compilers will take some time to implement the new standards. C23 seems to have decent support from a few compilers, with GCC leading the pack: https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/compiler_support/23.html https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/compiler_support/23.html gcobol supports (or at least aims to support?) COBOL 2023: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-15.1.0/gcobol/gcobol.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-15.1.0/gcobol/gcobol.html. Presumably there are other compilers working on support as well. Intel's Fortran compiler and LFortran have partial support for Fortran 2023 (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/fortran-language-and-openmp-features-in-ifx.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/t..., https://docs.lfortran.org/en/usage/ https://docs.lfortran.org/en/usage/). I'd guess that support both from these compilers and from other compilers (Flang?) would improve over time as well..

pklausler 1y ago
Flang does already support warnings for features that have breaking changes in F’2023.
- aw1621107 1y ago
  Glad to hear it! Didn't turn up anything obvious in my brief search, but I was expecting some work towards newer standards at least.
  - pklausler 1y ago
    Why would you expect that? There are few incentives to work on features that nobody is using.
    - aw1621107 1y ago
      Because given the work needed to actually get a feature into the standard I'd assume there's at least some demand motivating the addition. I'd also be a bit hesitant about claiming that nobody is using said features. It's quite possible that the "new" feature is actually "just" a standardization of something that exists in practice. WG14 is hardly a stranger to that kind of thing, from what I understand; it wouldn't surprise me if something similar occurs for the Fortran/COBOL working groups as well.
      - pklausler 1y ago
        That's a reasonable assumption, but it turns out to rarely be the case with WG5/SC22/J3. There are exceptions (like SIND, SINPI, &c.), but most new features in Fortran standards are committee inventions without prototypes, reference implementations, or official conformance test suites. This leads to incompatible implementations, and then lack of use in codes that need to be portable. It's a mess, really. I have a test suite of examples of this kind of thing that accumulated during the implementation of flang-new, in which it was a difficult task to figure out what portable Fortran really means in a way that's meaningful to users.
        aw1621107 1y ago
        I'll defer to your expertise here. If C++'s experience with similar situations is any indication it really does not seem like a fun spot to be in. Does make me curious how the dynamics of the Fortran/COBOL committees differs from that of the C/C++ committees.