This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] Inline DOT_PRODUCT
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>
- Cc: THOMAS Paul Richard 169137 <paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr>, Janne Blomqvist <jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:45:27 -0500
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] Inline DOT_PRODUCT
- References: <756DFD3DE8F1D411A59A00306E06E84702C42A06@drfccad.cad.cea.fr> <44037F69.9020301@wanadoo.fr>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:38:33PM +0100, Paul Thomas wrote:
> Please find attached a corrected version of the dot_product patch. The
> condition on argument kind has gone and I have got at least some of the
> copyright years. Evidently I am not the only one not updating the dates
> correctly! That said, I will endeavour to catch some of the rest before
> submitting.
>
> Unless I receive any show-stopping, adverse comments, I intend to commit
> this patch on Wednesday morning. Before I do so, though, could somebody
> please confirm that all the automake generated stuff should be committed.
Is GCC 4.2 libgfortran.so expected to be ABI incompatible with GCC 4.1
compiled fortran code?
If not, then you shouldn't be removing any exported functions from
libgfortran.
Jakub