On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 07:46:01PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 4:02 PM, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> wrote: > > A few questions: > > > > 1. Regarding gfortran.map, shouldn’t we just flatten out all the symbols > > from GFORTRAN_1.0 to GFORTRAN_1.7 into a single new GFORTRAN_2.0 group > > (while removing the ones we are getting rid of)? > > Yes, I agree (in general, though I was thinking of making the new one > "GFORTRAN_7" to match the release series). 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. 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.
That's an interessting question. All of the intrinsic subprogams in Section 13 of the standard are required by the implementation. This suggests that _GFortran should be used. The Fortran standard does allow a processor to supply additional intrinsic subprograms beyond those in Section 13 (e.g., all of the g77 compatibility routines). I think we should simply use the same prefix. I'll leave the choice to whoever does the work. :-) -- Steve
