Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR107635, 4_v1] Fix class type and descriptor handling for new coarray interface [PR107635]

2025-02-22 Thread Andre Vehreschild

Hi Harald,

thanks for the review. Silently I'd hoped that there is some macro to get
the i-th argument, that I just haven't found and someone could point me to.
I will add a comment, when ko one comes up with the macro by Monday.

Thanks,
Andre
Andre Vehreschild * ve...@gmx.de
Am 22. Februar 2025 15:29:20 schrieb Harald Anlauf :


Hi Andre,

Am 21.02.25 um 14:35 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:

Hi all,

during testing and compiling some larger coarray codes, I found a few
deficiencies. One was with handling class types when splitting the coarray
expression and the other was that the backend_decl of a formal argument in a
function's symbol was not the same as the one the function was compiled to. So
looking at the function-decl's tree n-th formal argument is the way to go
there.

Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / F41. Ok for mainline?


I am amazed that you do not get lost handling 9-fold nested
macros!  This is OK, as this touches your CAF code.

Otherwise, I'd recommend to add an explaining comment in the
code or code such that mere mortals have a better chance to
follow...

Thanks,
Harald


Regards,
Andre
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de




Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR107635, 4_v1] Fix class type and descriptor handling for new coarray interface [PR107635]

2025-02-22 Thread Harald Anlauf

Hi Andre,

Am 21.02.25 um 14:35 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:

Hi all,

during testing and compiling some larger coarray codes, I found a few
deficiencies. One was with handling class types when splitting the coarray
expression and the other was that the backend_decl of a formal argument in a
function's symbol was not the same as the one the function was compiled to. So
looking at the function-decl's tree n-th formal argument is the way to go there.

Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / F41. Ok for mainline?


I am amazed that you do not get lost handling 9-fold nested
macros!  This is OK, as this touches your CAF code.

Otherwise, I'd recommend to add an explaining comment in the
code or code such that mere mortals have a better chance to
follow...

Thanks,
Harald


Regards,
Andre
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de