On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:29 AM, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Furthermore, on 2014-05-12 I committed a patch changing libgfortran to >> be built with -std=gnu11 instead of -std=gnu99, so that we can make >> use of C11 functionality; see >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-04/msg00101.html . > > Committed as rev. 212323, thanks for the review. > > I now propose the attached patch, which performs a small cleaning up: > - Use the new _Noreturn language feature (supported in GCC since 2011) > instead of the old attribute. This makes prototypes shorter and more generic. > - Move the complex-related REALPART, IMAGPART and COMPLEX_ASSIGN macros > from libgfortran.h to c99_intrinsics.c, which is the only place they’re ever > used. > > > Built and tested on x86_64-linux, OK to commit?
Ok. > PS: I didn’t touch libcaf, as I assume this might be compiled with a > different compiler. Am I right? My understanding is that libcaf is delivered in source form, and the end user is expected to compile it against the correct MPI library on the target. So yes, one could be a bit more conservative here than in libgfortran proper (although one could expect the user to have access to the gcc version corresponding to gfortran..). But Tobias certainly knows better. > PS2: A third issue I’ve though about is: should we get rid of the following > __GNUC__ test? libgfortran is not used as a standalone Fortran runtime > library, and I think it is (and never will) be built by something else than a > stage3 compiler. > >> #ifndef __GNUC__ >> #define __attribute__(x) >> #define likely(x) (x) >> #define unlikely(x) (x) >> #else >> #define likely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 1) >> #define unlikely(x) __builtin_expect(!!(x), 0) >> #endif What about --disable-bootstrap? Does it just skip stage1 and stage2, and stage3 is used to compile libgfortran, or is the host compiler used to build libgfortran as well? If the former, yes I guess we can remove #ifnderf __GNUC__ stuff? -- Janne Blomqvist
