public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "sandra 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 22:15:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-108056-4-xgnoCGnXpu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-108056-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056

--- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I've swapped out just about all the details on this work after more than a
year, but....  we shouldn't be trying to create a CFI descriptor with
BT_ASSUMED at all, should we?  If the compiler is generating a CFI descriptor
for an assumed-type argument it's supposed to use the actual type of the
argument passed, not BT_ASSUMED, right?  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?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-12-11 22:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-11  6:37 [Bug libfortran/108056] New: " gilles.gouaillardet at gmail dot com
2022-12-11  7:05 ` [Bug libfortran/108056] " kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-11  7:44 ` gilles.gouaillardet at gmail dot com
2022-12-11  7:51 ` gilles.gouaillardet at gmail dot com
2022-12-11  8:44 ` rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com
2022-12-11 13:19 ` [Bug libfortran/108056] [12/13 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-11 18:34 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-11 22:15 ` sandra at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-12-11 22:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-12  8:40 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-12  9:07 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2022-12-12  9:10 ` gilles.gouaillardet at gmail dot com
2022-12-12 12:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-12 12:34 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2022-12-15 11:27 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-16  2:47 ` haochen.jiang at intel dot com
2022-12-16  7:48 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-16  7:57 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-20 17:22 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-21  7:13 ` [Bug libfortran/108056] [12 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-21  7:23 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-21  7:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-108056-4-xgnoCGnXpu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).