From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4966 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2015 06:31:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact fortran-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: fortran-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 4956 invoked by uid 89); 17 Nov 2015 06:31:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: troutmask.apl.washington.edu Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (HELO troutmask.apl.washington.edu) (128.95.76.21) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 06:31:40 +0000 Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id tAH6VbfU082078 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:31:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id tAH6Vb0U082076; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:31:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 06:31:00 -0000 From: Steve Kargl To: Paul Richard Thomas Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Trunk in Stage 3. Message-ID: <20151117063137.GA81929@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20151117011301.GA80458@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00098.txt.bz2 Paul, In truth, I missed the original announcement. Stumbled acrossed it today, and thought I should bring it to everyone's attention. I knew about your PDT effort and Jerry told me on IRC (on Sat.?) that he was working out the details for DTIO. Concerning the array descriptor reform, I recall Tobias indicated that the fortran-devel branch had a 90-95% complete implementation. Unfortunately, its that last 5-10% of effort that is the hard part! As you may have guessed from my recent uptick in fixing bug reports, I knew that 6.0 stage 3 was coming. In addition, Gerhard Steinmetz has been submitting a number of bugs that sit in my wheel house. So, I was simply started to attack the issues I thought I could fix. Just finished a patch for PR 43966. :-) Bugzilla (via the gfortran wiki) shows 805 bug reports for Fortran. I'm hoping a call-to-arms will encourage others to burn any spare cycles on PRs. Yeah, I know. What's a spare cycle as I only closed 1 PR last year! :-( -- steve On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 06:53:25AM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > Dear Steve, > > Yes, I did miss it. The deferred character length fix became more than > a little bit obsessive in nature, after I picked it up, and I ignored > nearly everything else that was going on. > > I have spent quite some time in the last few months, trying to > engineer a working schema for parameterized derived types. I think > that I have a solution but (i) it will be a fairly monumental > undertaking; and (ii) It will be the sort of addition that is > completely out of line with stage 3. On the bright side, this gives me > a reasonable amount of time to get it right. The submodule work went > this way too. I had been toying with it, when stage 3 of 5 branch > arrived. Although, what I did at that time was entirely wrong headed, > the process of thinking it through meant that implementation went > rather quickly. > > Jerry has been working away on user-defined derived-type IO. I had > already undertaken to help him out with this but have fallen short on > that (Sorry, Jerry!). Jerry and I will work together to see if it can > be rolled out on a short timescale. > > I have a patch for recursive, allocatable derived-type components more > or less ready to go. I'll see if I can submit it in the next 48 hours. > Of its nature, I believe that it will be save, even for stage 3; ie. > to trigger it requires that such a derived type be declared and the > patch is entirely ring fenced by statements along the lines "if this > component is allocatable and of the same type as the parent derived > type, do such-and-such". > > Apart from these two new features, I have loads of bugs to work on! > The oldest concern pointers to components of derived type arrays. I > had hoped to introduce the array descriptor reform but just have not > had the time - it's another rather monumental task! Since it is, to my > knowledge, the only non-compliance with F95, I will submit the kludgy > solution that I have been avoiding. > > Cheers > > Paul > > On 17 November 2015 at 02:13, Steve Kargl > wrote: > > If you missed the announcement, trunk is now in Stage 3. > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2015-11/msg00075.html > > > > This means bugfixing and no new features unless the > > new feature has been previously submitted for review. > > > > So, who has outstanding patches needing reviews and > > who wants to jump on the squashing of old bug reports? > > > > -- > > Steve > > > > -- > Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's > too dark to read. > > Groucho Marx -- Steve