This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 36322/36463
- From: "Janus Weil" <jaydub66 at googlemail dot com>
- To: "Paul Richard Thomas" <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Fortran List" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:09:45 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 36322/36463
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=JlHZJxlk8dkPPOwA0Z/zlBeGfmJp7Ef286cQ03acBW8=; b=lg0Jxu04X6X/o5sL3AVxG8o1WBPZsTuzDp6hL0zz7hi/5wjadkrbHGslXNWQLNYhr3 UcFsuFqs+kQR32fcCJMhZbX0VN2fiqS9Xp948levnv6J0LSiNo3IcJIHwabDJqe9UnW1 RembiUVP5EWIf8/9sFiQsUT72RN73bZr/Wvg0=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=j7qm9GH17H4s/N/ax8/geT2y78grkfCK9R+WNGw5/NZpHxHTebvQO/CzFCuiHH5ooA Owc585dI1c2b855CZPqkjMTjDEpaKEl4KlL2LWlsujA86Tk3JSmcOgtYbKHUPNilF+BV 0CkwbFmlcGEhqv87apZFXZGtYNl+mR+CAzE1k=
- References: <854832d40810240244j2bc91d2fo527f0f8137520092@mail.gmail.com> <339c37f20810240424i2a974b7bvaa07dd112053f7fe@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Paul,
> I have a question, though: Is this patch not substantially
> duplicating the interface mapping that goes on in trans-expr.c?(This
> only occurred to me a few minutes ago)
Good question. Actually I was not aware of that mapping code,
therefore it may well be that there is some duplication in my patch
(theoretically).
OTOH, if I understand correctly, the code that you are referring to is
used to map the actual args to the formal args in a function call,
which is of course not what I need to do with my patch, though there
might be similarities.
What one needs to do for "PROCEDURE(i) :: p" is to make a complete
copy of the interface i, including all the formal arguments etc. So it
involves not so much a mapping, as merely a duplication of an
interface, which seems to be quite a difference to me.
But obviously I am not familiar with the mapping code, and so I might
be completely wrong. Maybe there is indeed the possibility to exploit
some of the mapping code for the patch. If you have an idea on how
that could work please let me know. I will try to investigate this.
Cheers,
Janus