From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-304613-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25416 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2010 10:42:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 25360 invoked by uid 48); 8 Jan 2010 10:42:18 -0000
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:42:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20100108104218.25359.qmail@sourceware.org>
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
References: <bug-25829-11659@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Subject: [Bug fortran/25829] [F2003] Asynchronous IO support
In-Reply-To: <bug-25829-11659@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-01/txt/msg00920.txt.bz2



------- Comment #17 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-01-08 10:42 -------
(In reply to comment #16)
> Here, the ME might be tempted to change the order of WAIT and "var = 7"; thus
> in this case we probably need to tell the ME about the ASYNCHRONOUS attribute.

Probably by dropping the "restricted" for the pointer argument (as one would to
for TARGET). One should also check that it works for:
  subroutine finish(var, wait)
    BLOCK
      asynchronous :: var
      wait(wait)
      var = 7
    end BLOCK
  end subroutine finish
assuming that "asynchronous" applies in the block to the dummy argument.
(Should work analogously for volatile.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829