Desire to allocate bit in DT_PARM bitmask for DEC FORMAT compatibility purposes

[Fritz Reese]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 08:44:41PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> Now that you mention it, -std=dec would prevent a user from
>> specifically requesting, say, only Fortran 95 with DEC
>> extensions (i.e, -std=f95 -fdec).
>>
>> So, to prevent a bikeshed and micro-engineering, I think you
>> should go with using bit 28 to comunicate with the runtime
>> and put everything under -fdec in the FE.
>
> In that case, we would have two bits that are always set based on flag_dec
> in the compiler.
>
> Thus, wouldn't following patch be better?  I.e. just rename the existing bit
> from a single particular DEC extension to indicate it turns on all runtime
> DEC extensions we support, now or in the future?
>
> Is this ok for trunk now (if it passes bootstrap/regtest)?  Jeff then can
> follow with his patch in stage1 just using this bit.

I agree with this. Looks good to me.

---
Fritz Reese