From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D79E3858C53 for ; Sat, 5 Nov 2022 23:46:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4D79E3858C53 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id j15so11543313wrq.3 for ; Sat, 05 Nov 2022 16:46:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Gk+M/w20YFhxTpBUIZAw1lhOx22gIPmqdmvj/HkTLKc=; b=c1Ui/tf6AGVUkFeXbLvOhz5Ww47+Z3EYd9esC/2FLVmd3spWvpdWejbynkHp3sAY1f Kg+5jRYfkm/l9Af/kZHJimbNavwoGnxkQO24HkZy/o4e0Mkx+ySDhcMsN6aF/qyhZuOy JQ1+sJi5TGLb8RG3pthL/fod2bdISsVwY7xDAI61uqss6z8otc3Cl4yQn+z4Pgq5c447 fuSxVIjmXCxdit9dc7UbniOhxWMB49D/rkQ4WBKHC+E8Iy1hR7QMv+kqYEpXNAV61XnL tBNZpHO1gAeyDtKeg+hhLZpO5uo3+2aTDbzLKXaFcGVgX2iPeSzcOh9+EThKWuRwz1AI lFMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Gk+M/w20YFhxTpBUIZAw1lhOx22gIPmqdmvj/HkTLKc=; b=QJN+0dHCpemVMhnrf8+9bW2pNHy2Df9PNMA+czJrojLMo53FCiNTaKFhlu6If+kV2a 5dBgaqfJu6LSl82MrMMgNM1tc0pvYT5AdGreqIeXZ+72jwZN9Vx4CDlbvvSJpce+n8vo Y2JzvsWgooy+MVM8oPw0X8DLBuHBeE+/XuIyYl9YfV12xD/kB1p2ReyV3GPeewXFr08B HiHPKMzrAEnKeq+RxbXf3I1B58Av6sRK335555i5yq9kbgoYcNqcqYrPssrKuueS8k7i rg1zt8OY0Aro2tgCTYNoufv3A8wHl9butMuYlOwGbckUDOjLgoGznW/y6x3GY0sWi5yc Z9Yw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pkNSKp3UE/MMCfD2U5D/cntqfdNoNhKFsID0zw9lBrO0cQoUaCL EWoov6zCkF9WZbwqr78b45A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf6uw2NLM93LxiW9F8YwcRsKi1a4dSqlWKGfpwWBkDYsqSFkZDLg64AGcpEl6VfY5yBhbQIAHg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6909:0:b0:23a:fbdc:3791 with SMTP id t9-20020a5d6909000000b0023afbdc3791mr6008116wru.60.1667692009905; Sat, 05 Nov 2022 16:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nbbrfq ([2001:871:227:81c4:d7ff:3a0e:48da:5fe3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u13-20020a5d434d000000b0023647841c5bsm3257748wrr.60.2022.11.05.16.46.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 05 Nov 2022 16:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2022 00:45:19 +0100 From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer To: Tobias Burnus Cc: rep.dot.nop@gmail.com, fortran Subject: Re: [Patch] Fortran: Fix reallocation on assignment for kind=4 strings [PR107508] Message-ID: <20221106004519.71f07ebd@nbbrfq> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Sat, 5 Nov 2022 23:28:47 +0100 Tobias Burnus wrote: [no comment. I wonder why we malloc versus realloc in the first place, i'd realloc always for starters. We end up calling into libc anyway, we don't inline any of those calls and we suffer lib-boundary non-IPA trouble either way, still, no? So why the conditional on our side? valgrind certainly does not have a problem either way and i'd hope our analyzer doesn't either. So what's that dance good for anyway? If you did not remove it altogether anyway that is. ] > PPS: I lost track of pending patches. Are they any which I should > review? You could poke honza in a while (which i will do if there is interest) WRT https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-November/605081.html needed iff we want to have (a cleaned-up version, including gfortran.texi hunk) what David Love asked for in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-October/058395.html and where Thomas K=C3=B6nig expressed possible interest as per https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2022-November/058441.html to add support for attribute target_clones. I tested only c,c++,fortran,lto, don't have cycles for all langs, so if you do d,ada,m2,.. The other 2 trivial hunks stemming from looking around that attribute were approved already by Jeff and Richi, i'll push them sometimes next week or during next weekend. But David Love raised a question about more of the attributes supported by the C FE, not just target_clones. What are your thoughts around those? blindvt> Tobias___, hi. You might have seen that David Love asked for blindvt> attribute target_clones. Are there other attributes that you blindvt> think would be helpful to support? blindvt> i think flatten would be potentially usable, at least for blindvt> power-users. blindvt> not sure about simd. Maybe that? Or something blindvt> else too? WDYT? blindvt> i'm willing to spend one or two evenings on blindvt> these, if you folks thing they are worth adding... Apart from that, folks will certainly point at other patches pending review.. thanks and cheers,