Re: [Fortran, (RFC) patch] PR49110/51055 Assignment to alloc. deferred-length character vars

[Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

Hi all,

>>> Btw, note that we are using a double underscore scheme in other places
>>> (like __class, __vtab, __vtype, etc). I have even used an '@' in one
>>> place, namely (hidden) procedure pointer results ("ppr@"). Is there a
>>> need to unify all those cases?
>>
>>
>> It think it would be useful to unify those. Are you volunteering?
>
> yeah, why not ;)
>
> Attached is a draft patch (not regtested), which adds a macro
> GFC_PREFIX (in gfortran.h) to prepend "_F" to the cases included in
> Tobias' earlier patch as well as the OOP-related stuff and procedure
> pointer results. It also bumps the module version.
>
> Any comments so far? (Of course the name of the macro can be debated.
> I just tried to keep it short for now.)

unfortunately my previous patch regressed on the proc_ptr_result test
cases (due to problems with implicit typing of symbols with leading
underscores, which also were the reason for using a suffix instead of
a prefix for proc-ptr results in the first place). So I have taken out
the 'ppr' parts, leaving only Tobias' original cases and the OOP
stuff, which at least should be regression-free now.

There are some more double-underscore cases which one could also
change into the new _F convention. Should I keep going in this
direction, or should we rather restrict this to the "leading dot"
cases for now? I guess this is a question of how much ABI breaking we
are willing to take. Opinions?

Cheers,
Janus

Attachment: mangling_v2.diff
Description: Binary data