> Yes, I agree (in general, though I was thinking of making the new one > "GFORTRAN_7" to match the release series).
Given that there will not be a 1-to-1 mapping of release series with major ABI versions (hopefully!), I don’t think this is a good idea. It will make people confused. > There's also other things, > like e.g. ISO_C_BINDING helper functions living under the > __iso_c_binding namespace, instead of under _gfortran like everything > else. Agreed. > And while we're at it, should we place everything under > "__gfortran" or "_GFortran", that is, with two underscores or one > underscore followed by a capital letter which in the C world is > reserved for the implementation? Though it's not clear to me whether > libgfortran can claim to be part of "the implementation" vs. being > generic user code. Another issue is that we have some documented, user-callable functions that currently live in the __gfortran_ “namespace”, e.g. the mixed-language routines (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/Non-Fortran-Main-Program.html). We want to avoid changing those for no reason, and so for consistency I think we should keep everything under __gfortran_ FX
