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

[Steve Kargl]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 09:42:40AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek 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.
> 

Jakub,

I'll going to be traveling for meetings over he next
week, so will only have limited time and email access.
I will defer to Jerry as he is much more familiar with
the runtime library IO routines.

-- 
Steve