This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] A first small step towards CFI descriptor implementation
- From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- To: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Damian Rouson <damian at sourceryinstitute dot org>, Daniel Celis Garza <celisdanieljr at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 10:04:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] A first small step towards CFI descriptor implementation
- References: <CAGkQGiJcaLdFfVkGbOonPaBAWoMr_Q=sLEVs17fGbwwamBaL5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKwh3qib1=x7XEC=ErTiyQqu8MjrX5q-CJfkSiGV-tDRyLq46A@mail.gmail.com>
The ordering is fixed by the ordering of types in the CFI part of the
standard. Intrinsic types, then derived types and finally all the
For the time being I will interchange character and derived types in
the conversion functions.
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 at 18:10, Janus Weil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 2018-07-31 14:06 GMT+02:00 Paul Richard Thomas <email@example.com>:
> > Daniel Celis Garza and Damian Rouson have developed a runtime library
> > and include file for the TS 29113 and F2018 C descriptors.
> > https://github.com/sourceryinstitute/ISO_Fortran_binding
> > The ordering of types is different to the current 'bt' enum in
> > libgfortran.h. This patch interchanges BT_DERIVED and BT_CHARACTER to
> > fix this.
> is this ordering actually fixed by the F18 standard, or is there any
> other reason why it needs to be like this? What's wrong with
> gfortran's current ordering?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
- Albert Einstein