Re: [patch, fortran] annotate library calls, part 1

[Mikael Morin <mikael dot morin at sfr dot fr>]

Le 13.07.2010 15:21, Tobias Burnus a écrit :
> On 07/12/2010 06:18 PM, Mikael Morin wrote:
> > Le 12.07.2010 16:39, Tobias Burnus a écrit :
> > > > > Attached patch annotates the library calls in trans-decl.c and
> > > > > trans-io.c with
> > > > > noclobber/noescape attributes.
> >
> > I disagree for ttynam, fdate, ctime.
> >   - ttynam : ".W.." instead of ".WW." :
> > - fdate : ".W." instead of ".ww" :
> > - ctime : ".W.." instead of ".Rw." :
>
> I concur - seemingly, I wrongly looked at the subroutine version instead
> of the function version. (trans-decl.c only handles the latter.)
>
> > By the way the documentation has the arguments in reversed order it seems.
>
> I checked "ctime" and the result looks fine for both subroutine and
> function version, cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/CTIME.html
> -- why do you think that the order is reversed?
From your patch :

+  gfor_fndecl_ctime = gfc_build_library_function_decl_with_spec (
+	get_identifier (PREFIX("ctime")), ".W",
+	void_type_node, 3, pchar_type_node, gfc_charlen_type_node,
+	gfc_int8_type_node);

the char (pointer and length) is first, the integer is last.

From the documentation :
              call ctime(i,date)
The integer is first, the char (pointer and length) is last.


But you have said that trans-decl.c doesn't handle the subroutine 
version ? I was supposing that both were handled by the same subroutine 
declaration and the front-end was rewriting the function version as a 
subroutine call.
> > For set_args, isn't "..." the same as no spec at all ?
> Changed to the no-spec version.
>
> Updated patch attached, committed as Rev. 162140.
Thanks,

Mikael