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
