This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Fortran, (RFC) patch] PR49110/51055 Assignment to alloc. deferred-length character vars
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>, Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 19:48:44 -0500
- Subject: Re: [Fortran, (RFC) patch] PR49110/51055 Assignment to alloc. deferred-length character vars
- References: <CAGWvny=fM8KOXSmRqzs51h4=Vnk9xvmKO4Zx8=pbpN3s2rSheA@mail.gmail.com> <506CA783.20202@net-b.de> <CAGWvnymtNejaXtfrjC7iMP=jQ9Mub7QR7nEwmp-emi2qM0bGQA@mail.gmail.com> <506D5D21.7080201@net-b.de> <CAKwh3qhZfTbjM4JGQmsbnmQmQr397YxVSyyKUhfwVz1tw2vYZQ@mail.gmail.com> <506D7018.9080806@net-b.de> <CAKwh3qjJ8dk-ut-GiNEzX8wq5qKOhhcBH4VopiuPNTFu4ZxToQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKwh3qgqDCDS5EV1qV33RmAHbaX8FzSpFF++DqLAKYq2aOsAaQ@mail.gmail.com>
There has been no progress on this bug for over two months. I have
opened PR fortran/55636. This must be fixed before GCC 4.8 ships.
Thanks, David
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Janus Weil <janus@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 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