[Bug fortran/20178] New: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[Bug fortran/20178] New: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org]

A function returning a COMPLEX value cannot be compiled in g77 and
called from gfortran (or vice versa) - doing so results in a segfault
or incorrect results.  (See test case below.)

This is a problem, since for the near future g77 and gfortran are
likely to coexist on many systems, and incompatible calling
conventions for F77 code means that libraries like the BLAS will have
to be provided in two flavors (g77 and gfortran) on the same system, a
major headache for users (not to mention distributors).

Note that COMPLEX argument passing seems to be okay (the below test
case works fine if it is switched from a function into a subroutine).

Environment:
System: Linux fftw.org 2.6.3-1-686-smp #2 SMP Tue Feb 24 20:29:08 EST 2004 i686 GNU/Linux
Architecture: i686

	
host: i686-pc-linux-gnu
build: i686-pc-linux-gnu
target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
configured with: ../configure --prefix=/home/stevenj/gcc4 --enable-languages=c,f95

How-To-Repeat:
Create two files, arg1.f and arg1tst.f, consisting of:

arg1.f:
      complex function arg1(x, y)
      complex x, y
      arg1 = x + y
      return
      end

arg1tst.f:
      program arg1tst
      complex x,y,z, arg1
      x = cmplx(1.,2.)
      y = cmplx(3.,4.)
      z = arg1(x,y)
      write(*,*) z
      end

Compile arg1.f with g77 (I'm using version 3.3.5):

	g77 -c arg1.f

Compile arg1tst.f with gfortran, and link with arg1.o from above:

	gfortran arg1tst.f arg1.o -o arg1tst

Run ./arg1tst, and the result on my system is:

	Segmentation fault

Expected output is: (  4.000000    ,  6.000000    )

-- 
           Summary: COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.0.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: stevenj at fftw dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
 GCC build triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-23 19:02 -------
Yes we know about this and it will not be fixed.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-23 19:47 -------
Have 'we' ever agreed not to fix this?  I would be interested in the rationale
given at that time.  The issue Steven raises is important, even if there are
only four functions returning COMPLEX in BLAS: cdotc, cdotu, zdotc, and zdotu

Reopened until agreement is reached.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
             Status|RESOLVED                    |UNCONFIRMED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-02-23 19:49:11
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-23 20:11 -------
g77's documentation of the calling convention:
`-fno-f2c'
     Do not generate code designed to be compatible with code generated
     by `f2c' use the GNU calling conventions instead.

     The `f2c' calling conventions require functions that return type
     `REAL(KIND=1)' to actually return the C type `double', and
     functions that return type `COMPLEX' to return the values via an
     extra argument in the calling sequence that points to where to
     store the return value.  Under the GNU calling conventions, such
     functions simply return their results as they would in GNU
     C--`REAL(KIND=1)' functions return the C type `float', and
     `COMPLEX' functions return the GNU C type `complex' (or its
     `struct' equivalent).

     This does not affect the generation of code that interfaces with
     the `libg2c' library.

     However, because the `libg2c' library uses `f2c' calling
     conventions, `g77' rejects attempts to pass intrinsics implemented
     by routines in this library as actual arguments when `-fno-f2c' is
     used, to avoid bugs when they are actually called by code
     expecting the GNU calling conventions to work.

     For example, `INTRINSIC ABS;CALL FOO(ABS)' is rejected when
     `-fno-f2c' is in force.  (Future versions of the `g77' run-time
     library might offer routines that provide GNU-callable versions of
    the routines that implement the `f2c' intrinsics that may be
     passed as actual arguments, so that valid programs need not be
     rejected when `-fno-f2c' is used.)

     *Caution:* If `-fno-f2c' is used when compiling any source file
     used in a program, it must be used when compiling _all_ Fortran
     source files used in that program.



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-23 20:30 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> However, this doesn't really alter the basic question of why you are 
> changing the default calling conventions.

Well chaning to be more target's C like (because that is what gfortran uses now) ABI.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-23 20:31 -------
And gfortran is totally new front-end, written from scratch.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[stevenj at fftw dot org]

------- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org  2005-02-23 20:28 -------
Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
 g77

I confirm that it works when you compile arg1.f with -fno-f2c:
         g77 -fno-f2c -c arg1.f
         gfortran arg1tst.f arg1.o -o arg1tst
         ./arg1tst
  (  4.000000    ,  6.000000    )

However, this doesn't really alter the basic question of why you are 
changing the default calling conventions.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-23 20:43 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> However, this doesn't really alter the basic question of why you are 
> changing the default calling conventions.

You could call it an oversight.  The -fno-f2c calling convention is handled by
the compiler automatically (set function type to complex, and it will do the
right thing), and nobody ever tried interoperability of this feature with g77.



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[stevenj at fftw dot org]

------- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org  2005-02-23 20:44 -------
Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
 g77

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Well chaning to be more target's C like (because that is what gfortran 
> uses now) ABI.

If you're breaking backwards ABI compatibility anyway, which does not seem 
like a decision to take lightly, clean up everything at once.

e.g. you want to get rid of f2c cruft, why not make -fno-second-underscore 
the default as well?  (Despite the gcc manual's claims, no non-GNU 
compilers that I know of append 2 underscores to external names with 
underscores, at least any more.  Almost all of them, e.g. SGI, Intel ifc, 
Portland, Tru64, ..., append a single underscore in all cases.  IBM xlf 
and HP/UX append no underscores at all.)



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[stevenj at fftw dot org]

------- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org  2005-02-23 20:46 -------
Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
 g77

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> And gfortran is totally new front-end, written from scratch.

Obviously.  That doesn't mean that the rest of the world ceases to exist.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-27 18:43 -------
Upgraded to normal severity, interoperability with g77 is important.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|enhancement                 |normal


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-03 20:51 -------
Working on this.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-02-23 19:49:11         |2005-03-03 20:51:26
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-03 21:36 -------
BTW I will also propose a patch to make -fno-second-underscore the default, once
this is fixed.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[stevenj at fftw dot org]

------- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org  2005-03-03 21:49 -------
Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
 g77

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> BTW I will also propose a patch to make -fno-second-underscore the 
> default, once this is fixed.

I'm confused...shouldn't it be one or the other?  i.e. either make -ff2c 
-fsecond-underscore the default, compatible with g77, *or* make -fno-f2c 
-fno-second-underscore the default, incompatible with g77 but free of f2c 
cruft.

I would vote for the former, simply because compatibility with g77 by 
default has huge practical advantages for library distributors that seem 
(to me) to outweigh the aesthetic benefits of removing f2c cruft.

(Making -fno-second-underscore the default does have the non-aesthetic 
practical advantage of better compatibility with non-GNU compilers, but 
the GNU project has traditionally placed a higher priority on 
compatibility with free software than with non-free software.)

Steven


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-03 22:06 -------
I agree with you that -ff2c should imply -fsecond-underscore.  I don't agree
that the advantages of -ff2c outweigh the disadvantages of -fno-f2c so far that
-fno-f2c should be the default.  If we don't switch to -fno-f2c as default now,
it will never happen in the foreseeable future.

One practical problem with gfortran and -ff2c is the following: gfortran's
library uses the -fno-f2c calling convention, so using -ff2c with my patch
so-far will break use of complex functions as actual arguments.  The restriction
from the quote from g77's documentation applies the exactly opposite way.  I
haven't yet looked into how much of an effort fixing this would be.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[stevenj at fftw dot org]

------- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org  2005-03-04 04:44 -------
Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
 g77

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I agree with you that -ff2c should imply -fsecond-underscore.  I don't 
> agree that the advantages of -ff2c outweigh the disadvantages of 
> -fno-f2c so far that -fno-f2c should be the default.

Just to be clear, what exactly do you feel are the concrete practical 
advantages to -ff2c?



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[stevenj at fftw dot org]

------- Additional Comments From stevenj at fftw dot org  2005-03-04 04:46 -------
Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
 g77

> Just to be clear, what exactly do you feel are the concrete practical
> advantages to -ff2c?

(Sorry, I mean -fno-f2c.  The practical advantages to backwards 
compatibility are obvious.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-04 11:27 -------
- a simpler compiler
- simpler interfacing with C code
- less excess precision problems with floating point returns (REAL*4 returns are
not returned as REAL*8)
- faster executables
- we'll never get this if we don't do it now

But if you really like the default the other way round, I'd suggest:
- you implement the necessary changes to the library :-)
- we discuss this on the mailing list once I submit the patch, so that other
people can weigh in as well.

I hope to get there today, I have finished the COMPLEX part, and I don't think
the REAL part will be difficult.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-04 11:40 -------
BTW, most (if not all) of the affected functions in BLAS / LAPACK are auxiliary
functions, i.e. are only called from within those libraries.  Changing the
interface will only affect functions called from the outside, so compatibility
issues might not be so bad.  But as I said, a discussion of this should take
place on the mailing list.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-03-05 15:33 -------
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-03/msg00060.html

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |patch


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-10 22:07 -------
Subject: Bug 20178

CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
Module name:	gcc
Changes by:	tobi@gcc.gnu.org	2005-05-10 22:06:55

Modified files:
	gcc/fortran    : ChangeLog gfortran.h invoke.texi lang.opt 
	                 options.c trans-decl.c trans-expr.c 
	                 trans-types.c 
	gcc/testsuite  : ChangeLog 
	libgfortran    : ChangeLog Makefile.am Makefile.in aclocal.m4 
Added files:
	gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg: f2c_1.f90 f2c_2.f90 f2c_3.f90 
	libgfortran/intrinsics: f2c_specifics.F90 

Log message:
	gcc/fortran/
	PR fortran/20178
	* gfortran.h (gfc_option): Add flag_f2c.
	* invoke.texi: Document '-ff2c' command line option.  Adapt
	documentation for '-fno-second-underscore' and '-fno-underscoring'.
	* lang.opt (ff2c): New entry.
	* options.c (gfc-init_options): Set default calling convention
	to -fno-f2c.  Mark -fsecond-underscore unset.
	(gfc_post_options): Set -fsecond-underscore if not explicitly set
	by user.
	(handle_options): Set gfc_option.flag_f2c according to requested
	calling	convention.
	* trans-decl.c (gfc_get_extern_function_decl): Use special f2c
	intrinsics where necessary.
	(gfc_trans_deferred_vars): Change todo error to	assertion.
	* trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_variable): Dereference access
	to hidden result argument.
	(gfc_conv_function_call): Add hidden result argument to argument
	list if f2c calling conventions requested.  Slightly restructure
	tests.  Convert result of default REAL function to requested type
	if f2c calling conventions are used.  Dereference COMPLEX result
	if f2c cc are used.
	* trans-types.c (gfc_sym_type):  Return double for default REAL
	function if f2c cc are used.
	(gfc_return_by_reference): Slightly restructure logic.  Return
	COMPLEX by reference depending on calling conventions.
	(gfc_get_function_type): Correctly make hidden result argument a
	pass-by-reference argument for COMPLEX.  Remove old code which does
	this for derived types.
	libgfortran/
	PR fortran/20178
	* Makefile.am (gfor_specific_src): Add 'intrinsics/f2c_intrinsics.F90'
	to dependencies.
	* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
	* intrinsics/f2c_specific.F90: New file.
	gcc/testsuite/
	PR fortran/20178
	* gfortran.dg/f2c_1.f90, gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90,
	gfortran.dg/f2c_3.f90: New tests.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.418&r2=1.419
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.68&r2=1.69
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/invoke.texi.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/lang.opt.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/options.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.18&r2=1.19
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.57&r2=1.58
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.42&r2=1.43
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/fortran/trans-types.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.41&r2=1.42
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.5459&r2=1.5460
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/f2c_1.f90.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/f2c_2.f90.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/f2c_3.f90.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.211&r2=1.212
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/Makefile.am.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.32&r2=1.33
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/Makefile.in.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.33&r2=1.34
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/aclocal.m4.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libgfortran/intrinsics/f2c_specifics.F90.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-10 22:23 -------
Fixed on the mainline.  I will commit this to the branch after the obligatory
testing and the necessary changes (unfortunately -fsecond-underscore became the
default on the branch).

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

Re: [Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[Toon Moene]

tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> ------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-10 22:23 -------
> Fixed on the mainline.  I will commit this to the branch after the obligatory
> testing and the necessary changes (unfortunately -fsecond-underscore became the
> default on the branch).

[ Sorry for the late reply ]

I wonder if that really means we have to stick to -fsecond-underscore on 
the 4.0 branch.  Only 4.0.0 is out, and it is very probable that 
*nobody* uses it for any serious work in Fortran anyway.

I feel we can safely change the default, even on the branch.

-- 
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/
News on GNU Fortran 95: http://gfortran.org/

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl]

------- Additional Comments From toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl  2005-05-15 11:32 -------
Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
 g77

tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> ------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-10 22:23 -------
> Fixed on the mainline.  I will commit this to the branch after the obligatory
> testing and the necessary changes (unfortunately -fsecond-underscore became the
> default on the branch).

[ Sorry for the late reply ]

I wonder if that really means we have to stick to -fsecond-underscore on 
the 4.0 branch.  Only 4.0.0 is out, and it is very probable that 
*nobody* uses it for any serious work in Fortran anyway.

I feel we can safely change the default, even on the branch.



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de]

------- Additional Comments From Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de  2005-05-18 11:19 -------
Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
 g77

toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl  2005-05-15 11:32 -------
> Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
>  g77
> 
> tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> 
> 
>>------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-10 22:23 -------
>>Fixed on the mainline.  I will commit this to the branch after the obligatory
>>testing and the necessary changes (unfortunately -fsecond-underscore became the
>>default on the branch).
> 
> 
> [ Sorry for the late reply ]
> 
> I wonder if that really means we have to stick to -fsecond-underscore on 
> the 4.0 branch.  Only 4.0.0 is out, and it is very probable that 
> *nobody* uses it for any serious work in Fortran anyway.
> 
> I feel we can safely change the default, even on the branch.

I'm also inclined to doing this, 4.0.1 will probably be vastly more usable
than 4.0, but I'd still like to get feedback from the list.  It's really a
minor incompatibility.  Especially since a lot of people seem to use
'-fno-second-underscore'.

- Tobi


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]


------- Additional Comments From Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de  2005-05-22 18:10 -------
Subject: Re:  COMPLEX function returns incompatible with
 g77

Tobias Schlüter wrote:
>>>------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-05-10 22:23 -------
>>>Fixed on the mainline.  I will commit this to the branch after the obligatory
>>>testing and the necessary changes (unfortunately -fsecond-underscore became the
>>>default on the branch).
>>
>>
>>[ Sorry for the late reply ]
>>
>>I wonder if that really means we have to stick to -fsecond-underscore on 
>>the 4.0 branch.  Only 4.0.0 is out, and it is very probable that 
>>*nobody* uses it for any serious work in Fortran anyway.
>>
>>I feel we can safely change the default, even on the branch.
> 
> 
> I'm also inclined to doing this, 4.0.1 will probably be vastly more usable
> than 4.0, but I'd still like to get feedback from the list.  It's really a
> minor incompatibility.  Especially since a lot of people seem to use
> '-fno-second-underscore'.

I'll commit this during the week, unless somebody objects.  Toon's approval
together with no objections so far is enough for me, but I wanted to give
everybody a last chance to object.

- Tobi


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-20 22:46 -------
This is now fixed, right?

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178

[Bug fortran/20178] COMPLEX function returns incompatible with g77

[tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-07-22 13:37 -------
Yes.  Thanks for reminding me.

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20178