This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove unused libgfortran functions
- From: FX <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist dot janne at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:59:22 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove unused libgfortran functions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1481892792-406-1-git-send-email-blomqvist.janne@gmail.com> <09EA6A5E-6461-41BB-9E40-06A33F87C565@gmail.com> <CAO9iq9HxAG3TK=NiH+4i_u7PyCj8-6e+r5hfDbLY4ohUdq5wQQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Yes, I agree (in general, though I was thinking of making the new one
> "GFORTRAN_7" to match the release series).
Given that there will not be a 1-to-1 mapping of release series with major ABI versions (hopefully!), I don’t think this is a good idea. It will make people confused.
> There's also other things,
> like e.g. ISO_C_BINDING helper functions living under the
> __iso_c_binding namespace, instead of under _gfortran like everything
> else.
Agreed.
> And while we're at it, should we place everything under
> "__gfortran" or "_GFortran", that is, with two underscores or one
> underscore followed by a capital letter which in the C world is
> reserved for the implementation? Though it's not clear to me whether
> libgfortran can claim to be part of "the implementation" vs. being
> generic user code.
Another issue is that we have some documented, user-callable functions that currently live in the __gfortran_ “namespace”, e.g. the mixed-language routines (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/Non-Fortran-Main-Program.html). We want to avoid changing those for no reason, and so for consistency I think we should keep everything under __gfortran_
FX