This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch, fortran] annotate library calls, part 1
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Mikael Morin <mikael dot morin at sfr dot fr>
- Cc: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>, Daniel Franke <franke dot daniel at gmail dot com>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 18:23:48 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch, fortran] annotate library calls, part 1
- References: <email@example.com> <4BFBDC46.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4C3B2938.email@example.com> <4C3B4038.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Mikael Morin <email@example.com> wrote:
> Le 12.07.2010 16:39, Tobias Burnus a écrit :
>> On 05/25/2010 04:18 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>>> On 05/12/2010 08:52 PM, Daniel Franke wrote:
>>>> Attached patch annotates the library calls in trans-decl.c and
>>>> trans-io.c with
>>>> noclobber/noescape attributes. That is, those in trans-io are dummies
>>>> literally just "....", so somebody who knows the internals can fill them
>>>> easily wherever feasible.
>>> Some comments:
>> Attached is a re-diffed patch, which contains also fixes the issues I
>> raised during my review.
>> Build and regtested on x86-64-linux.
>> OK for the trunk?
> I disagree for ttynam, fdate, ctime.
> ?- ttynam : ".W.." instead of ".WW." :
> ? ? ?as gfc_charlen_type_node (second arg) is not a pointer, there
> ? ? ?should be no spec about it (at least to be consistent with the
> ? ? ?rest of the patch)
> ?- fdate : ".W." instead of ".ww" :
> ? ? ?same reason as above. And there can be no double dereference of a
> ? ? ?simple char pointer.
> ?- ctime : ".W.." instead of ".Rw." :
> ? ? ?same as above. By the way the documentation has the arguments in
> ? ? ?reversed order it seems.
> For size1 there is one char missing : ".R." instead of ".R"
> For set_args, isn't "..." the same as no spec at all ?
You can omit specs for trailing args, so ".R" is the same as ".R.". And
yes, "..." is the same as no spec at all (and thus better).