This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR81447 - [7/8] gfortran fails to recognize the exact dynamic type of a polymorphic entity that was allocated in a external procedure
- From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- To: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at netcologne dot de>
- Cc: Andre Vehreschild <vehre at gmx dot de>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 12:44:14 +0000
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR81447 - [7/8] gfortran fails to recognize the exact dynamic type of a polymorphic entity that was allocated in a external procedure
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGkQGi+O8g1c_C3=WF8D=CMLN495rE84dO7LrWwUmcKKEaTSBw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGkQGiKzv6TzgvqwGNUAp_Czdwt-_UUgimUdL4QnyQGZntA6EQ@mail.gmail.com> <20171104190339.2ba519d4@vepi2> <4e3b59ad-5c88-c1f4-904d-bb3d72e3883b@netcologne.de>
Hi Andre and Thomas,
Thanks for looking at this.
I left the condition as it is because it is the same practice as all
sorts of other parts of gfortran. That said, Thomas's suggestion is I
think the right one.
Committed revision as revision 254427. 7-branch will come later.
Regards
Paul
On 4 November 2017 at 18:35, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
>> Shouldn't that better be
>>
>> if ((gfc_option.allow_std & GFC_STD_F2003) > 0
>
>
> I think that
>
> if ((gfc_option.allow_std & GFC_STD_F2003)
>
> would be better - the allow_std field is signed, and
> things could get hariy if we ever have close to 32
> standards we would like to support.
>
> Hm, come to think of it, is there a special reason to keep
> this signed, or could we just change it to unsigned?
>
> Regards
>
> Thomas
--
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
- Albert Einstein