[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Does not seem assigned.

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355

Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING
                 CC|                            |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is a feature which:

 - there is a standard way to achieve, using FLUSH in the right places
 - there is a non-standard way to achieve, with environment variables
(GFORTRAN_*_UNBUFFERED)

Do we need yet another extension? I don't think so.

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

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

--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Do we need yet another extension? I don't think so.

Agreed.

Jerry,

Do you still want to assign this PR to yourself?

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355

Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
No, lets close it.

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-13 05:40 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Looking at latest gfortran, we have raw_init and buf_init functions which set
> the style of I/O.  I think it would be relatively easy now to create a Gnu
> extension as an intrinsic procedure call that will force a flush on a unit

The question is whether it needs to be some easily accessible intrinsic
function or whether some __gfortran_set_* would be enough; cf.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/Non_002dFortran-Main-Program.html

The latter, which just sets a variable would be also an option. Actually, one
could think of adding an item to _gfortran_set_options


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-13 04:10 -------
Looking at latest gfortran, we have raw_init and buf_init functions which set
the style of I/O.  I think it would be relatively easy now to create a Gnu
extension as an intrinsic procedure call that will force a flush on a unit and
then call raw_init or buf_init based on some parameter passed to the procedure.
 We would have to make sure the unit has the lock when doing this. We also have
to make sure we have no pending asynchronous I/O happening.  In other words, we
force a WAIT as well.

I will assign myself to this as a reminder.  I may not get to it, so if someone
else wishes to do so, take it.


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2008-09-11 19:30:14         |2010-04-13 04:10:43
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-09-11 19:30 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes, FLUSH works, but 
> 
> * I don't think it was part of standards until 2003, 
> * I need to place it several places in my code,
> * I really didn't want gfortran specific code if I could avoid it
> * There isn't a problem with buffering on our other compilers
>   on HP-UX.  c89 + HP F90 work fine for buffer synchronization.
> 
> I guess I will have to assume my feature request is denied.

Actually, it's not :-)

Confirmed.  I'll think about this a little bit.


-- 

tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2008-09-11 19:30:14
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[MMcVeigh at att dot net]

------- Comment #2 from MMcVeigh at att dot net  2008-09-08 20:00 -------
Yes, FLUSH works, but 

* I don't think it was part of standards until 2003, 
* I need to place it several places in my code,
* I really didn't want gfortran specific code if I could avoid it
* There isn't a problem with buffering on our other compilers
  on HP-UX.  c89 + HP F90 work fine for buffer synchronization.

I guess I will have to assume my feature request is denied.

Thanks for your suggestion,

Mark


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-09-08 18:29 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
I would like a method to override
> the default buffering at runtime.

What about calling FLUSH in critical places?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355

[Bug fortran/37355] Request runtime preconnected buffer option for gfortran

[kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement
           Priority|P3                          |P5


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37355