From patchwork Sun Jan 27 20:16:05 2013 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Mikael Morin X-Patchwork-Id: 216061 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 29A792C0091 for ; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 07:16:40 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1359922601; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=gbtrCfW9OdyHJwYz/eSh ro5Zph4=; b=RH0otnOAoNVB8BkW7aYzrgCnLBfbdKsBtGIHHtBi7w94ZANzuaPB 7shVlFZdBDcsKZdPfMVpexshfGj6GH3uvxSf6pccl3d3axwkoriK/jBJzTagkeg+ YxPZwe/prkek6dht9jmH+JobtbZqQ0OOCRKV8tdkORs2q2UR0imvOyk= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:X-SFR-UUID:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=AfUMnMe0mR4FCFdgBoH8J7OUEW3cxcuayu/syqtNFQ/HD8FBX0/grO2QAbVEcU SE13DXwrIlMKqfVdWQNS1Xv9YDuD086G4V/7F7wmxmWXc3KY29Vvey/F+lYHW7VZ KVEzWkzpAyx5IaSNNmA6SpecZQdNAkwp5M8txdrMk/y4Y=; Received: (qmail 10758 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2013 20:16:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 10723 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2013 20:16:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP, KHOP_THREADED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp22.services.sfr.fr (HELO smtp22.services.sfr.fr) (93.17.128.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:16:14 +0000 Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2206.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 158A570000AF; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:16:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.58] (92.183.72.86.rev.sfr.net [86.72.183.92]) by msfrf2206.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C866570000A9; Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:16:10 +0100 (CET) X-SFR-UUID: 20130127201610820.C866570000A9@msfrf2206.sfr.fr Message-ID: <51058B05.8030904@sfr.fr> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 21:16:05 +0100 From: Mikael Morin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130127 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Janus Weil CC: gfortran , gcc-patches Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 54107: [4.8 Regression] Memory hog with abstract interface References: In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Hi Janus, Le 27/01/2013 19:49, Janus Weil a écrit : > > subroutine sub (arg) > procedure(sub) :: arg > end subroutine > You forgot to precise that this case (which is basically comment #4 in the PR) is *not* fixed by the patch, as it fails later on at translation stage. I have made up my mind that it's not possible for the middle-end to build such a recursive type. So `arg' will have to have a variadic function type. No patch yet, sorry; I have just figured it out. > Anyway, should we bump the mod version with this patch, or should we > rather avoid it? > I forgot the reason why we are so reluctant to do it. Module versions are not a rare resource. I'm in favor of bumping (and any time we change module format). About the patch, one nit: The comment should probably be removed as well. > The patch was regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? > OK from my side; you may or may not need someone else's ack as I'm the coauthor. Or maybe wait for the fix for comment #4? Mikael Index: gcc/fortran/gfortran.h =================================================================== --- gcc/fortran/gfortran.h (revision 195493) +++ gcc/fortran/gfortran.h (working copy) @@ -974,8 +974,6 @@ typedef struct gfc_component struct gfc_component *next; /* Needed for procedure pointer components. */ - struct gfc_formal_arglist *formal; - struct gfc_namespace *formal_ns; struct gfc_typebound_proc *tb; } gfc_component;