From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15479 invoked by alias); 28 Sep 2009 19:59:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 15402 invoked by uid 48); 28 Sep 2009 19:58:55 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:59:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090928195855.15401.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/41227] COMMON block, BIND(C) and LTO interoperability issues In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "tobi 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: 2009-09/txt/msg02553.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #2 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-28 19:58 ------- The way usually recommended is to use a struct for interoperability with Fortran common blocks, say http://support.microsoft.com/kb/51614 Unfortunately, the idiom "use a single variable common block, say common/x/y, access it via the name of the common block, followed by an underscore, say x_" is also common. At least in my workplace it's the way everybody uses. In other words, we can't afford to break either way. -- tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41227