Re: [patch, fortran, wwwdocs] PR93461 - Bogus "symbol is already defined" with long subroutine names in submodule
Thanks Tobias and Gerald - that change is now committed: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc-wwwdocs.git;a=commit;h=b88b1edba71bbca44429c28b7518d76678ab6acb On Wednesday, January 29, 2020 11:57:02 AM PST Tobias Burnus wrote: > LGTM – and also to Gerald. Hence, go ahead! > > Thanks for the patch, > > Tobias > > On 1/29/20 1:45 AM, Andrew Benson wrote: > > Hi Tobias, > > > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 6:49:54 PM PST Tobias Burnus wrote: > >> Thus, I do not think it is a real problem in practice. We could be nice, > >> however, and add a note to the release notes (i.e. > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/changes.html); I not completely sure whether > >> it is worthwhile but why not. [See https://gcc.gnu.org/about.html#git > >> about how to change WWW files and CC Gerald as web maintainer when > >> submitting wwwdocs patches.] > > > > I've attached a draft patch to update the release notes about this ABI > > breakage. I don't know if I've explained it sufficiently clearly though? > > > > -Andrew -- * Andrew Benson: http://users.obs.carnegiescience.edu/abenson/contact.html * Galacticus: https://github.com/galacticusorg/galacticus
Re: [patch, fortran, wwwdocs] PR93461 - Bogus "symbol is already defined" with long subroutine names in submodule
LGTM – and also to Gerald. Hence, go ahead! Thanks for the patch, Tobias On 1/29/20 1:45 AM, Andrew Benson wrote: Hi Tobias, On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 6:49:54 PM PST Tobias Burnus wrote: Thus, I do not think it is a real problem in practice. We could be nice, however, and add a note to the release notes (i.e. https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/changes.html); I not completely sure whether it is worthwhile but why not. [See https://gcc.gnu.org/about.html#git about how to change WWW files and CC Gerald as web maintainer when submitting wwwdocs patches.] I've attached a draft patch to update the release notes about this ABI breakage. I don't know if I've explained it sufficiently clearly though? -Andrew
Re: [patch, fortran, wwwdocs] PR93461 - Bogus "symbol is already defined" with long subroutine names in submodule
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Andrew Benson wrote: > I've attached a draft patch to update the release notes about this ABI > breakage. I don't know if I've explained it sufficiently clearly though? I do not speak Fortran, but your description was easy to read and understand for me. :-) Thank you, and okay - let's just give the Fortran team a day or two to chime in before you push the change. Gerald
Re: [patch, fortran, wwwdocs] PR93461 - Bogus "symbol is already defined" with long subroutine names in submodule
Hi Tobias, On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 6:49:54 PM PST Tobias Burnus wrote: > Thus, I do not think it is a real problem in practice. We could be nice, > however, and add a note to the release notes (i.e. > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/changes.html); I not completely sure whether > it is worthwhile but why not. [See https://gcc.gnu.org/about.html#git > about how to change WWW files and CC Gerald as web maintainer when > submitting wwwdocs patches.] I've attached a draft patch to update the release notes about this ABI breakage. I don't know if I've explained it sufficiently clearly though? -Andrew -- * Andrew Benson: http://users.obs.carnegiescience.edu/abenson/contact.html * Galacticus: https://github.com/galacticusorg/galacticus diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html index dcce6b8..5a959a1 100644 --- a/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html +++ b/htdocs/gcc-10/changes.html @@ -446,6 +446,13 @@ a work-in-progress. objects with allocatable components. In this case, the optional arguments STAT= and ERRMSG= are currently ignored. + +The handling of module and submodule names has been reworked to allow the +full 63-character length mandated by the standard. Previously symbol names +were truncated if the combined length of module, submodule, and function +name exceeded 126 characters. This change therefore breaks the ABI, but only +for cases where this 126 character limit was exceeded. +
