On 11/14/19 1:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
This broke on hosts where the system compiler doesn't have
ISO_Fortran_binding.h header installed (e.g. GCC 8 and earlier).
Aha, that's the reason.
Fixed thusly, tested on x86_64-linux, committed to trunk as obvious.
2019-11-14 Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 09:30:42AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Nov 14 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_17.c.jj 2019-11-13
> > 10:54:37.081172852 +0100
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_17.c 2019-11-14
> > 01:19:36
On Nov 14 2019, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_17.c.jj 2019-11-13
> 10:54:37.081172852 +0100
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_17.c2019-11-14
> 01:19:36.704285484 +0100
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>
> #include
> #include
> -#inc
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 03:42:23PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> 2019-12-11 Tobias Burnus
>
> libgfortran/
> PR fortran/92470
> * runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c (CFI_address): Handle non-zero
> lower_bound; update error message.
> (CFI_allocate): Fix comment typo.
>
I too had some considerable difficulty on this point. I wasn't at all
sure that the C world view was relevant here since the API includes
CFI_address and, in principle, one could reference directly the
elements pointed to by base_addr. However, I bow to the wisdom of your
correspondents on the j3 l
Hi all,
On 11/12/19 3:42 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
(2) CFI_establish: For allocatables, it is clear – base_addr == NULL.
For pointers, it is clear as well – it has to be '0' according to the
standard. But for CFI_attribute_other … I have now asked at
https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/
Hi Tobias,
Thanks for taking care of this so rapidly :-)
OK for trunk and for 9-branch.
Cheers
Paul
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 14:42, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Regarding the uncontroversial part: CFI_address. This has been reported
> by Vipul Parekh a few hours ago and the problem is: The lower bo
