[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc-patches
Subject:    Re: [Patch, Fortran] Handle GENERIC type-bound procedures
From:       Daniel Kraft <d () domob ! eu>
Date:       2008-08-31 10:05:25
Message-ID: 48BA6CE5.9030208 () domob ! eu
[Download RAW message or body]

Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> Daniel Kraft wrote:
>> this is a follow-up patch to my recent type-bound procedures
>> implementation to handle GENERIC bindings and it also includes some
>> minor tweaks to the general type-bound procedures handling.
> Thanks. (Note to others: OPERATOR(...) and ASSIGNMENT(=) do not work yet.)

Thanks for the review and in general the very good help in putting 
forward F2003 :)

Committed as rev. 139822.  I will update the wiki pages now again and 
then update my documentation patch and resubmit it.

>> I suggest to open a PR for this and not handle it directly with this
>> patch as it is already quite big and I don't think I've understood that
>> section well enough to do it at the moment...
> Deferring to a PR is OK.

I'll do this.

> +/* XXX: Should I incorporate this and match_generic_in_type?  */
> +
> +match
> +gfc_match_generic (void)
> 
> I would put them in one function; I think it is unlikely that 
> gfc_match_generic will serve any other function then 
> match_generic_in_type and gfc_match_generic is almost empty.

Done.

> +    /* XXX: Do we have to do access checking here?  What's about this 
> code:
> [...]
> +       Is this valid or invalid?  */
> 
> 
> Very good question. I would claim it is valid: "An extended type has a 
> scalar, nonpointer, nonallocatable, parent component with the type and 
> type parameters of the parent type. The name of this component is the 
> parent type name. It has the accessibility of the parent type." 
> ("4.5.6.1 Inheritance")
> 
> Thus proc should be accessible in t2 and thus it should work. I know 
> that f95 does not agree with me and thus one should maybe ask at c.l.f.

I asked there (as you may have seen yourself) and Richard Maine agrees 
with us that the code is valid.  I just removed the XXX.  If something 
else comes up, we can change the code easily in the future if needed.

Thanks,
Daniel

-- 
Done:     Arc-Bar-Cav-Sam-Val-Wiz, Dwa-Elf-Gno-Hum-Orc, Law-Neu-Cha, Fem-Mal
To go:    Hea-Kni-Mon-Pri-Ran-Rog-Tou
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]