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 DA937388DD7F; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 22:24:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DA937388DD7F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670797488;
	bh=gQcuGwK2Bt3I/cGHtE4UMvB+jg8MWXOPm5gWZ8QMT6M=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=P8Q90LGB2j0BiGAPQtyB2oknsYNfQZVeKNILkQq6I1FiQ7ToGdgiYBI1coBdJuMKu
	 1qaKfbDzA9Hav0PmRCIDlAnKU584157K/c+aZGfLRs2yll8DjPAl9MiOGu7WRTKqPF
	 8dNftt4sXwaM4poGCvXZ/GYy/+8GLQOXLNLRW6Nk=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <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: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 22:24:48 +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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-108056-4-k5GPbWA3x9@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

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to sandra from comment #7)
If gcc 11 had a bug that
> caused it to do that incorrectly, is it necessary to retain ABI
> compatibility by continuing to reproduce the bug in newer versions of
> libgfortran?  Maybe we should just remove the functions that are allegedly
> there for compatibility so that users will get a link error instead?

No, certainly not.  As long as libgfortran.so keeps its SONAME
(libgfortran.so.5 right now), it should remain backwards compatible
(libgfortran.so.5 from newer gcc should handle programs compiled by older g=
cc
as long as the programs were valid).=