[Fwd: Re: [Bug libfortran/19303] Unformatted record header is 4-byteson 32-bit targets]

[Emil Block <blime at cox dot net>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Bug libfortran/19303] Unformatted record header is 
4-bytes on 32-bit targets
Date: 	Tue, 31 May 2005 10:03:54 -0400
From: 	Emil Block <blime@cox.net>
To: 	gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
References: 	<20050106232657.19303.milan@cmm.ki.si> 
<20050531084141.1497.qmail@sourceware.org>



I second the "thanks a million", and also don't think g77  belongs in 
the option name.

I have been using a very fast sort program for large files written in  
C++ (not by me) , and compiled with gcc-3.3.2 (c++) which produces a 
binary file that is read using Fortran code compiled with g77, and have 
not experienced any problems.  I was testing this very large simulation 
using gcc-4.0 (c++) and g95  when I ran into the problem -- the binary 
file created
with gcc-4.0 (c++)  could not be read by g95 compiled code --  
incompatible record markers
(32 bit vice 64 bit).

blime

milan at cmm dot ki dot si wrote:

> ------- Additional Comments From milan at cmm dot ki dot si  2005-05-31 08:41 -------
> Great work! Thanks a million!
>
> Somehow I also have a problem with the name of the option, since g77 has exactly
> the same problem. When I compile with the g77 I get 8 byte headers on AMD64, so
> the name g77 doesn't really correspond to always get 4 byte headers. But this is
> very minor thing especially if it is documented how it works, the name shouldn't
> really matter.
>
>