[patch,fortran] Revamp type enumerators

[Jerry DeLisle]

On 10/17/2010 07:11 AM, Daniel Franke wrote:
> On Sunday 17 October 2010 16:03:14 Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>>>> -{
>>>> -  GFC_DTYPE_UNKNOWN = 0,
>>>> -  GFC_DTYPE_INTEGER,
>>>> -  /* TODO: recognize logical types.  */
>>>> -  GFC_DTYPE_LOGICAL,
>>>> -  GFC_DTYPE_REAL,
>>>> -  GFC_DTYPE_COMPLEX,
>>>> -  GFC_DTYPE_DERIVED,
>>>> -  GFC_DTYPE_CHARACTER
>>>> +{ BT_UNKNOWN = 0, BT_INTEGER, BT_LOGICAL, BT_CHARACTER, BT_REAL,
>>>> BT_COMPLEX,
>>>> +  BT_DERIVED, BT_CLASS, BT_PROCEDURE, BT_HOLLERITH, BT_VOID
>>>>
>>>>    }
>>>> -dtype;
>>>> -
>>>> +bt;
>>>
>>> Isn't changing the values of the enums an ABI change?
>>
>> I was trying to avoid that, but probably got carried away. How about I
>> commit the change to the fortran-exp branch so that it gets merged into
>> 4.7 when we plan to break ABI anyway?
>
> Wouldn't it be sufficient to re-order the BT_* to match the GFC_DTYPE_*?
> Only BT_CHARACTER is out of order, BT_CLASS and on only add more identfiers.
> So, shouldn't this definition work, as in not breaking anything?
>
> +  { BT_UNKNOWN = 0, BT_INTEGER, BT_LOGICAL, BT_REAL, BT_COMPLEX,
> +    BT_DERIVED, BT_CHARACTER, BT_CLASS, BT_PROCEDURE, BT_HOLLERITH, BT_VOID }
>

Possibly, but I would want to test.  One way to test would be to copy the before 
patch libraries into the after patch build directory and run the testsuite. 
Regardless, this is a fairly intrusive patch even though mostly mechanical. 
Anyone else have any opinions?

Jerry