This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [Fwd: Question on PR25289]
- From: Thomas Koenig <Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de>
- To: Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>
- Cc: Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:23:22 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Question on PR25289]
- References: <44B45D28.2090106@verizon.net>
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:23:36PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
Hi Jerry,
I thought I had replied, but I'll just repeat my replies here :-)
> I did not here back from Thomas on this so I am going to list here.
> at it. We have one question. What, if any, problems do we have on a
> system that does not support GFC_INTEGER_8? Are there any such systems?
I don't think there are any systems without GFC_INTEGER_8. Can somebody
else confirm this?
> Do you see any issues with the record_marker size options?
No problem. I just wonder what will happen with large files on
systems where sizeof(off_t) is 4. I can't test this, however.
> --- 129,143 ----
> kind = bitsize / 8;
>
> if (kind == 4)
> ! {
> ! saw_i4 = true;
> ! gfc_record_int_kind = 4;
> ! }
> if (kind == 8)
> ! {
> ! saw_i8 = true;
> ! gfc_record_int_kind = 8;
> ! }
This only works if the code is called with kind=4 first, with kind=8
second. Is this guaranteed?
If GFC_INTEGER_8 is indeed guaranteed to be present, then I think
we should bother with this. Just put in assert(HAVE_GFC_INTEGER_8)
somewhere.
Thomas