From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6693 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2007 14:13:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 6320 invoked by uid 48); 16 Sep 2007 14:12:50 -0000 Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:13:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070916141250.6319.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libfortran/25561] Eventually get rid of the Alloc Stream Facility In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jb at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg01293.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #4 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-16 14:12 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Why marking this as blocking asynchronous I/O? Well, no hard dependency. I just thought it would make sense to do this first, as it would reduce the work required to convert the library to a more traditional read/write design. I'm sure it's possible to shoehorn async i/o into the current library as well. Especially as there is no point in adding support for "real" async i/o at the moment, since e.g. Linux supports it only in conjunction with direct I/O. Frontend syntax support can be added before the actual backend takes advantage of it. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25561