Re: [patch, fortran] Add _gfortran_error_stop_numeric

[Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>]

On 05/14/2010 11:34 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:12, Jerry DeLisle<jvdelisle@verizon.net>  wrote:
> > On 05/14/2010 07:57 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > Well, there are plans to break ABI with the array
> > > desrciptor work.
>
> I wonder, would it be feasible to avoid breaking the ABI by using
> access macros for descriptors and then generate both old and new
> descriptor functions?
>
> Based on a quick look, the only function in the I/O library that uses
> the descriptor is tranfer_array, so the problem is restricted to the
> intrinsics, most of the intrinsics with array arguments are generated
> from the m4 macros.

I believe we also use array descriptors for character array internal units.

> > >   There's also the desire to reduce
> > > the number of functions in the library with the
> > > use of type casting in the front-end.
>
> Yes. I think this would be one good candidate for that. I donÂt see
> much need for having stop codes>  2**31, and on POSIX the return code
> is between 0 and 256 in any case.
>
> > > So, if you break the ABI, you need to bump the
> > > library version number.  Janne, is the right?
> > The patch bumps the library version when adding the new error_stop_numeric
> > function.
>
> No, it adds a new version node to the current major version. If you
> change the behavior or ABI of an existing function you need to bump
> the .so major version (in libgfortran/libtool-version IIRC).
OK, I await further guidance on what to do here.

> >   My question then is can we simply add duplicate names under this
> > new section in gfortran.map?  I am not clear on the correct way to do this.
>
> AFAIK it's not possible in the map file only. In the source you can
> rename a symbol and thus have different functions that have the same
> symbol name but different versions.
OK, we all need to learn what to do here since we are going to be making a lot 
of changes I suspect.  The stop and pause functions are pretty small so I have 
no issue with just creating new versions and leaving the originals untouched. 
This just not seem like it is very efficient, space wise.

jerry