This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

PING: Re: [Patch, Fortran] Derived-type finalization, second part split off


Hi Paul,

I'm back again, what do you think about this one? And what's about the message mentioned about temporaries?

Thanks,
Daniel

Daniel Kraft wrote:
Hi Paul,

here's a second split-off from the finalization patch after check-in and remerging the last part; it is roughly everything (remainin after the last part) except resolve.c changes.

This is somehow the "main part" and includes the logic behind gfc_finalize_expr, that is, everything except for the integration and actual *calling* of finalization. This means that this patch for itself does neither introduce new features nor any risk of breaking something (I think).

Maybe we could also include the basic finalization when a symbol goes out of scope here to get the code actually tested already when this is checked-in and somewhat working (but for this we would have to remove the not-yet-implemented message though finalization would be implemented at best "partially" then). What do you think? From my point of view, both ways are equally good solutions.

I believe this part of the patch is already quite "stable" and finished, nothing of the "open issues" affects it; the only point I ask you to think about is that by checking in this one, we make our lives harder if we find out that finalization can't possibly be done in the front-end and we have to move it to trans; but I believe it is highly unlikely that this should happen, and hope we can resolve the last issues in a way as I proposed in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-08/msg00026.html.

As usual, some XXX comments left in... What do you think about this patch, ok to commit or should I add some parts of reslve.c as described above? If I know your decision on how we should handle this part, I'll of course add a ChangeLog entry.

Regression-tested on x86-32-GNU/Linux with no failures of course, but as I said above I can't imagine how this patch should break something at the moment.

Cheers,
Daniel

PS: From today evening, I'll be off until coming Friday, possibly late at night; I'm doing a mountain-trip near the Großglockner (well, what do Austrians do in the summer when there's no snow to ski?). So take your time :)



--
Done:     Arc-Bar-Sam-Val-Wiz, Dwa-Elf-Gno-Hum-Orc, Law-Neu-Cha, Fem-Mal
Underway: Cav-Dwa-Law-Fem
To go:    Cav-Hea-Kni-Mon-Pri-Ran-Rog-Tou


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]