From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id C8AFE3887CEB; Mon, 12 Dec 2022 12:34:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C8AFE3887CEB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670848485;
	bh=nol8j6FdPTAd53uy9G2MXrWzWjrQlJpowA/jbsWsr4o=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Q7pMXhtGVyoDnLpe3uYlVtROjYLQ4kiFPtBiyE7ayzLRXbBbJBEZSMTefZxXv4cQT
	 NWBk6e6ZE6Ed3ZekugeRF0/ihayfmPjuoq9HJBQ5R99dORzahK0C4o0eP7hrR45x6x
	 xBrwJMGN2Hjg8AOFm0TlcS8fdSjCjYF5ffABhqEk=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/108056] [12/13 Regression] backward compatibility
 issue between 11 and 12
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 12:34:45 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108056-4-YVc4msFGCM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108056-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108056-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108056

--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Mon, 12 Dec 2022, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108056
>=20
> --- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
[...]
> Thus, we have two options:
>=20
> (A) We change those to functions back to the GCC 11 version; the new chec=
k was
>     added in Sandra's commit r12-3321-g93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a=
9d01d7
>     back when those functions were still used in GCC 12.
>=20
> (B) I think we have to possibilities to map this:
>=20
> BT_ASSUMED -> CFI_type_cptr  or  CFI_type_other; using the latter, that's=
 the
> following (untested but it should work):
>=20
>   -------------------------------------------
> --- a/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c
> +++ b/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c
> @@ -182,4 +182,7 @@ gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc (CFI_cdesc_t **d_ptr, const
> gfc_array_void *s)
>        d->type =3D CFI_type_struct;
>        break;
> +    case BT_ASSUME:
> +      d->type =3D CFI_type_other;
> +      break;
>      case BT_VOID:
>        /* FIXME: PR 100915.  GFC descriptors do not distinguish between
>   --------------------------------------------
>=20
> Thoughts whether (A) or (B) is better?

I'd go with (A) if the functions are just for legacy code and not used
by GCC 12+ at all.=