On 01/22/2018 12:24 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Am 22.01.2018 um 20:59 schrieb Janne Blomqvist: >> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:12 PM, Paul Richard Thomas >> <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> This patch has been triggered by Thomas's recent message to the list. >>> Not only did I start work late relative to stage 3 but debugging took >>> somewhat longer than anticipated. Therefore, to get this committed >>> asap, we will have to beg the indulgence of the release managers and >>> prompt review and/or testing by fortran maintainers. (Dominique has >>> already undertaken to test -m32.) >> >> I think that if we can "guarantee" that we're happy with the current >> ABI for GCC 9 (and hopefully 10, 11, ...?) we have a quite strong case >> for committing it now. But if anybody if planning on doing some >> ABI-breaking work in the foreseeable future then maybe we should wait >> until GCC 9 stage1 opens. Anybody with such plans? > > For asynchronous I/O, we could add a pointer to void (unused at > present) for later use. That's all from my side. >
Do you mean adding something like this: diff --git a/libgfortran/libgfortran.h b/libgfortran/libgfortran.h index 4c643b7e17b..c86e0b45e1d 100644 --- a/libgfortran/libgfortran.h +++ b/libgfortran/libgfortran.h @@ -600,6 +600,7 @@ typedef struct st_parameter_common GFC_INTEGER_4 line; CHARACTER2 (iomsg); GFC_INTEGER_4 *iostat; + void *reserved; } st_parameter_common; and the corresponding front end side. > ---- snip -- Regarding Paul's patch, assuming the -m32 tests can be confirmed I think the patch should go in now. Jerry