Hi Tobias,
> I think the patch below is okay, especially in light of patch PR49110/51055
> which also contains a slight ABI breakage.
thanks, committed as r194375.
> Can you mention the potential ABI
> issue in the release notes (gfortran wiki).
Will do ...
Cheers,
Janus
> On 09.04.2012 18
Hi Janus,
I think the patch below is okay, especially in light of patch
PR49110/51055 which also contains a slight ABI breakage. Can you mention
the potential ABI issue in the release notes (gfortran wiki).
Tobias
On 09.04.2012 18:31 Janus Weil wrote:
Hi all,
here is a simple patch for a p
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:21, Tobias Burnus
wrote:
> Regarding ABI breakage:
[snip]
In general I agree that ABI compatibility is something we should take
seriously, but OTOH we should take care that the anointed ABI makes
sense. Which IMHO would imply that known ABI bugs/misdesigns should be
fix
>> 3) As you mentioned, the .mod version incompatibility also severely
>> limits the mixing of code compiled with different compiler versions.
>> And the proc-pointer name mangling (which is under discussion here)
>> *only* concerns proc-pointers inside modules.
>
> Note however, that GCC 4.7 and 4
Hi Janus:
> I would surely appreciate some input from others, also from users (in
> particular from Andrew as the bug reporter). In general: Is ABI
> compatibility of different gfortran versions important to gfortran
> users? (For me personally, as a user, not so much. I usually don't
> link my ow
Hi Janus,
On 04/11/2012 10:58 AM, Janus Weil wrote:
Hence, we should really think about -fabi-version= (and .mod compatibility).
Unless, we are positive that we will break the ABI for the array descriptor in
4.8, I am in favour of adding -fabi-version= already for the proc-pointer
patch.
Com
Hi Tobias,
> Hence, we should really think about -fabi-version= (and .mod
> compatibility).
> Unless, we are positive that we will break the ABI for the array descriptor in
> 4.8, I am in favour of adding -fabi-version= already for the proc-pointer
> patch.
>
> Comments?
well, my feeling is that
No patch review - but and answer to a question and a comment.
Janus Weil wrote:
> I am aware that it will break the ABI, but only for programs involving
> procedure pointers (which still is a 'relatively' new feature,
> supported since gfortran 4.4).
>
> Btw, speaking of ABI breaking: What are the
Hi all,
here is a simple patch for a problem recently reported by Andrew
Benson: Procedure pointers inside a module don't receive the proper
name mangling, which can lead to name collisions (as the test case
demonstrates).
The patch fixes this and regtests cleanly on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
I a
