Re: [PATCH, Fortran] Parse FINAL procedure declarations

[Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>]

Hi Daniel,


Daniel Kraft wrote:
> attached is the updated patch addressing these comments and ChangeLog.
> As usual tested on GNU/Linux-x86-32.
>
> * Add the not-implemented-error when everything else is finished and
> ready for check-in, up to then marked XXX.
This is crucial if you want to have this checked in.

> * I'm still waiting for the answer to whether I should make f2k_derived
> a union with formal in gfc_symbol.  My opinion is that this probably
> does not save that much space and makes things a bit "uglier", but there
> are already some unions like that in gfortran and it should work
> perfectly fine.  So I'm waiting for your comments, also for now marked 
> XXX.
Paul, what do you think regarding union vs. not union?


I believe the patch is OK - except for the missing not-implemented 
error. Regarding the point above, I don't have strong feelings about it. 
For me it is fine to delete the comment or leave it as it (including the 
question mark) with s/XXX/TODO/.

I will check in your patch, when you provide an patch which gives a 
not-implemented error. One could think of deferring some of the test 
cases until the actual implementation is there, if it gets too 
cumbersome to accommodate them for the not-implemented error.

Tobias