[Patch, Fortran] No-op Patch - a.k.a. FINAL wrapper update

[Tobias Burnus]

Am 29.11.2012 23:51, schrieb Janus Weil:
> one thing that I do not like about your patch is the modification of 
> "gfc_find_derived_vtab": You create two versions of it, one of which 
> creates the vtab if it does not exist, while the other version does 
> not do this. [...] can you explain to me why this would be necessary?

Well, strictly speaking it is not necessary. However, I use it in the 
to-be-submitted calling part of the patch:

           else if (al->expr->ts.type == BT_DERIVED)
             {
               gfc_symbol *vtab = gfc_find_derived_vtab 
(al->expr->ts.u.derived);
               if (vtab)

Here, I do not want to force the generation of a vtab which wouldn't 
otherwise exist. Otherwise, one had to at least guard it by checks for 
nonextensible derived types (sequence, bind(C)).

> [Moreover, the problem is that your new "gfc_find_derived_vtab" 
> behaves different from the old one but has the same name, while your 
> new "gfc_get_derived_vtab" behaves like the old "gfc_find_derived_vtab".

That's because of the bad choice of the current name. The other "find" 
functions do not generate the symbol if it does not exist, the "get" 
functions do. But otherwise I concur that changing the name is confusing.

> Therefore, the places where you change the behavior by keeping the 
> call to "gfc_find_derived_vtab" are not visible in the patch.

That should not happen. When I created the patch, I first renamed all 
existing versions, though it seems as if I there are currently three new 
ones which the current patch misses.

However, if you insist on the current meaning, can you provide a good 
name? Otherwise, I could use gfc_really_find_derived_vtab ;-)

Tobias