This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: -frecord-marker
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:13:44PM +0100, Keith Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > No, it is a horrible suggestion. Perhaps, you missed "It could also be
> > troublesome if not thought through carefully. You wouldn't want a file
> > half 32 bit markers, half 64, and part intel" You've just made writing
> > and maintaining the runtime library more complicated.
> >
> > Put these 2 subroutines into separate files.
> ...
>
> Isn't this just asking for trouble anyway?
Bingo. We have a winner!
Developer A compiles his library with Intel markers because
everyone uses Intel markers. Developer B gets a copy of the
library and uses 64-bit markers. Developer B can't figure
out why gfortran produces corrupt files.
You failed to answer the questions.
1) Do we mingle different markers in a single file?
2) Do we detect that different markers would be written to
a file, and to the conversion of markers by rewriting
the file?
Your TB file objection seems to nullify this option.
3) Do we issue a runtime error and abort?
Aborting a program that's run for several days due to
inconsistent markers would probably annoy the user.
I've read comp.lang.fortran and this forum long enough to
know that if you give users a loaded gun, they will shoot
their foot.
> I would never have expected it to work in the first place. I'm
> sure that there are plenty of things that can be done using
> existing compilation options that cause all hell
> to break loose. That's no justification for removing them.
It would be called a 'bug'. After a bug report is filed,
we would try to fix it.
>
> Conversion just isn't a practical solution.
>
The conversion is done once. Disks and cpus are fast.
--
Steve