[PATCH, Fortran] Parse FINAL procedure declarations
Tobias Burnus
burnus@net-b.de
Mon Jun 2 17:19:00 GMT 2008
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Kraft wrote:
> attached is the updated patch addressing these comments and ChangeLog.
> As usual tested on GNU/Linux-x86-32.
>
> * Add the not-implemented-error when everything else is finished and
> ready for check-in, up to then marked XXX.
This is crucial if you want to have this checked in.
> * I'm still waiting for the answer to whether I should make f2k_derived
> a union with formal in gfc_symbol. My opinion is that this probably
> does not save that much space and makes things a bit "uglier", but there
> are already some unions like that in gfortran and it should work
> perfectly fine. So I'm waiting for your comments, also for now marked
> XXX.
Paul, what do you think regarding union vs. not union?
I believe the patch is OK - except for the missing not-implemented
error. Regarding the point above, I don't have strong feelings about it.
For me it is fine to delete the comment or leave it as it (including the
question mark) with s/XXX/TODO/.
I will check in your patch, when you provide an patch which gives a
not-implemented error. One could think of deferring some of the test
cases until the actual implementation is there, if it gets too
cumbersome to accommodate them for the not-implemented error.
Tobias
More information about the Fortran
mailing list