Dear Dominique, Gilles and Reinhold,

Thank you for your rapid feedback. We might even get a reasonably
functional ISO Fortran binding in place for 9-branch release :-)  On
your remaining nits:

(i) ISO_Fortran_binding_4.f90 -m32 -O1/Os looks awful. I will take a
look, though.

(ii) pr89844 being fixed by an earlier patch led me to give it lower
priority. I will look to see whether another testcase is required to
nail it down.

(iii) I will take a look at 90093 - it should be straight forward. I
do not regard it as being a regression, however, since the arguments
were not being correctly handled until now - ie. were not converted
from cfi to gfc descriptors.

Cheers

Paul

On Mon, 15 Apr 2019 at 10:27, Bader, Reinhold <reinhold.ba...@lrz.de> wrote:
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> mostly looks good. Apart from a regression with optional arguments reported as
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90093
> all other  test cases I have now execute correctly.
>
> Cheers
> Reinhold
>
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com>
> > Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. April 2019 20:16
> > An: Thomas Koenig <tkoe...@netcologne.de>
> > Cc: Gilles Gouaillardet <gil...@rist.or.jp>; Bader, Reinhold
> > <reinhold.ba...@lrz.de>; fort...@gcc.gnu.org; gcc-patches <gcc-
> > patc...@gcc.gnu.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [Patch, fortran] PRs 89843 and 90022 - C Fortran Interop fixes.
> >
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > Thanks a lot. Committed as revision 270353.
> >
> > I was determined not to repeat the PDT experience, which is still nagging at
> > me. That has to be the next major gfc project, I guess.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 at 18:08, Thomas Koenig <tkoe...@netcologne.de>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Paul,
> > >
> > >
> > > > Please find attached the updated patch, which fixes the problem with
> > > > -m32 in PR90022, eliminates the temporary creation for INTENT(IN)
> > > > dummies and fixes PR89846.
> > > >
> > > > While it looks like it should be intrusive because of its size, I
> > > > believe that the patch is still safe for trunk since it is hidden
> > > > behind tests for CFI descriptors.
> > > >
> > > > Bootstraps and regtests on FC29/x86_64 - OK for trunk?
> > >
> > > OK.
> > >
> > > I we're going into the gcc 9 release with an implementation of the C
> > > interop features, it will be better with fewer bugs :-)
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for working on it!
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > >         Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
> > - Albert Einstein



-- 
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
- Albert Einstein

Reply via email to