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
