This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Someone has caused regressions in gfortran


> Because of the famous duplicated declaration problem

This sentence is reminding me that I forgot to send the following update:

As I said I was going to give it a shot over the week-end, here's an
update on this: it won't make it into 4.3, because it's a big change
and my current patch is triggering a very long string of
ice-on-invalid-code bugs (all type mismatches in Fortran interfaces
for procedures end up dying badly) as well as a few ice-on-valid-code
that are currently hard to track (and might be preexisting front-end
bugs exposed by the patch). I intend to work slowly on this, and
hopefully will have put a complete patch together when 4.4 stage1
opens.

> I am not sure if
> inlining is not completely unsafe for fortan and we would not be forced
> to disable it completely (not just partly as before the patch).  This
> would be rather sad.

I think the current situation is safe: we can online local functions
(functions declared and inside other functions), which are the Fortran
CONTAIN'ed functions. This should be safe, while all other inlining is
currently impossible.

FX


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