Bug 21673 - gfortran binary file format
Summary: gfortran binary file format
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 19303
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: fortran (show other bugs)
Version: 4.0.0
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-05-19 23:03 UTC by Emil Block
Modified: 2005-07-23 22:49 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Emil Block 2005-05-19 23:03:50 UTC
The way the binary record length is encoded appears to be changed
from g77 to gfortran.

  1.  Compatibility between gcc-3.x.x -  g77  and gcc-4.0 - gfortran
      -- not compatible and not a big problem, but don't know why it
      should change
  2.  Compatibility between gcc-3.x.x - cpp and g77 -- compatible.
  3.  Compatibility between gcc-4.0 - cpp and gfortran -- the problem
Comment 1 Andrew Pinski 2005-05-19 23:55:50 UTC
Try looking at: <http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GfortranUnformattedSequentialIo>.
The record size is 64bit on all targets now unlike in g77 so it is binary compatiable to g77 on 64bit 
targets.
Comment 2 Emil Block 2005-05-20 00:58:40 UTC
Subject: Re:  gfortran binary file format

Thanks for pointing me to the background. I searched, but used the wrong 
words.
I also recall something about 32 bit initial implementation for gfortran 
in  gcc-4.0, and
a record size of 64bit for all targets is counter to that idea.
What about compatability between gcc-4.0 - c++ and gfortran ? Are not 
c++ targets 32 bit?

blime

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

>------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-19 23:55 -------
>Try looking at: <http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GfortranUnformattedSequentialIo>.
>The record size is 64bit on all targets now unlike in g77 so it is binary compatiable to g77 on 64bit 
>targets.
>
>  
>
Comment 3 Andrew Pinski 2005-05-21 13:52:57 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19303 ***