Dear Janus, I woke up in the middle of the night realising that not only are you right about the need for dynamic dispatch but that my dtio_20.f90 must already work.
Thanks for putting me right! Paul On 13 December 2016 at 00:30, Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > Hi Paul, hi all, > > 2016-12-12 21:04 GMT+01:00 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>: >> As commented several times in bugzilla, my feeling is that the >> solution for this PR would be to utilize the vtable machinery, in >> order to generate a truly polymorphic call to the DTIO procedure. > > in order to elaborate what I have in mind, I'm attaching a draft patch > which implements polymorphic DTIO in the most straightforward manner I > could come up with. I have not regtested it yet, but at least it > removes the link failure on comment 0 and 6 in the PR and most > importantly it generates the correct output for comment 18, which none > of the previous attempts have accomplished. > > I'd be grateful for any comments, in particular whether I'm on the > right track here or whether I'm misinterpreting the F03 standard in > any way ... > > (Btw, it seems that Paul's dtio_20.f90 works already on current trunk, > so it's not very well suited to test for the problem at hand.) > > Cheers, > Janus > > PS: A quick check of the dtio_* tests shows ICEs on dtio_7.f90 and > dtio_13.f90. I'll look into those tomorrow. -- If you're walking down the right path and you're willing to keep walking, eventually you'll make progress. Barack Obama
