This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran] Handle GENERIC type-bound procedures
- From: Daniel Kraft <d at domob dot eu>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 12:05:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] Handle GENERIC type-bound procedures
- References: <48B912CF.4040109@domob.eu> <48B9C184.6040703@net-b.de>
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Kraft wrote:
this is a follow-up patch to my recent type-bound procedures
implementation to handle GENERIC bindings and it also includes some
minor tweaks to the general type-bound procedures handling.
Thanks. (Note to others: OPERATOR(...) and ASSIGNMENT(=) do not work yet.)
Thanks for the review and in general the very good help in putting
forward F2003 :)
Committed as rev. 139822. I will update the wiki pages now again and
then update my documentation patch and resubmit it.
I suggest to open a PR for this and not handle it directly with this
patch as it is already quite big and I don't think I've understood that
section well enough to do it at the moment...
Deferring to a PR is OK.
I'll do this.
+/* XXX: Should I incorporate this and match_generic_in_type? */
+
+match
+gfc_match_generic (void)
I would put them in one function; I think it is unlikely that
gfc_match_generic will serve any other function then
match_generic_in_type and gfc_match_generic is almost empty.
Done.
+ /* XXX: Do we have to do access checking here? What's about this
code:
[...]
+ Is this valid or invalid? */
Very good question. I would claim it is valid: "An extended type has a
scalar, nonpointer, nonallocatable, parent component with the type and
type parameters of the parent type. The name of this component is the
parent type name. It has the accessibility of the parent type."
("4.5.6.1 Inheritance")
Thus proc should be accessible in t2 and thus it should work. I know
that f95 does not agree with me and thus one should maybe ask at c.l.f.
I asked there (as you may have seen yourself) and Richard Maine agrees
with us that the code is valid. I just removed the XXX. If something
else comes up, we can change the code easily in the future if needed.
Thanks,
Daniel
--
Done: Arc-Bar-Cav-Sam-Val-Wiz, Dwa-Elf-Gno-Hum-Orc, Law-Neu-Cha, Fem-Mal
To go: Hea-Kni-Mon-Pri-Ran-Rog-Tou