This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
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.
Huh, still I would be interested in seeing the patch.
>
> > 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.
Can we trick fotran to set DECL_UNINLINABLE in the non CONTAIN'ed
functions?
Honza
>
> FX