This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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]

Re: [Patch, fortran] Inline DOT_PRODUCT

From: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>
To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
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: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:09:09 +0100
Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] Inline DOT_PRODUCT
References: <756DFD3DE8F1D411A59A00306E06E84702C42A06@drfccad.cad.cea.fr> <44037F69.9020301@wanadoo.fr> <20060227224526.GH20301@devserv.devel.redhat.com>

Jakub,

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.

That's a good question - I believe the compatibility has already been compromised but I am not sure. In many ways, I would be happier not removing the existing library functions; at least for the time being.

Paul

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Patch, fortran] Inline DOT_PRODUCT
  - From: Janne Blomqvist

References:
- RE: [Patch, fortran] Inline DOT_PRODUCT
  - From: THOMAS Paul Richard 169137
- Re: [Patch, fortran] Inline DOT_PRODUCT
  - From: Paul Thomas
- Re: [Patch, fortran] Inline DOT_PRODUCT
  - From: Jakub Jelinek

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