[Bug fortran/48298] New: F2003 Implement User Defined Derived Type IO (DTIO)

[Bug fortran/48298] New: F2003 Implement User Defined Derived Type IO (DTIO)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

           Summary: F2003 Implement User Defined Derived Type IO (DTIO)
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.7.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org


Tracker for implementation of this new feature.

[Bug fortran/48298] F2003 Implement User Defined Derived Type IO (DTIO)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-27 21:18:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 23785
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23785
A starting front end only patch

This is a beginning patch to allow the DTIO syntax to be accepted and some
format descriptor checking.

[Bug fortran/48298] F2003 Implement User Defined Derived Type IO (DTIO)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-28 03:22:01 UTC ---
Created attachment 23787
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23787
A starter test case

Using this attached file as a beginning test case.  Extracted fro F2003
Standard examples.

[Bug fortran/48298] F2003 Implement User Defined Derived Type IO (DTIO)

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-28 07:48:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Created attachment 23785 [details]
> A starting front end only patch

+      if (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2003, "Fortran 2003: DT format "
+          "specifier not allowed at %C") == FAILURE)

I somehow have parse problems; it sounds to me as if in Fortran 2003 the DT
specifier is not allowed. I would use:

+      if (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2003, "Fortran 2003: DT format "
+          "specifier at %C") == FAILURE)

[Bug fortran/48298] F2003 Implement User Defined Derived Type IO (DTIO)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-02 13:04:30 UTC ---
Status: With some significant help from Michael, we have a front-end patch
generating a call to transfer_derived() which passes a pointer to the user
defined DTIO procedure to libgfortran.

Next step is parsing format strings in libgfortran for the FMT_DT specifier.

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

[janus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
            Summary|F2003 Implement User        |[F03] User-Defined
                   |Defined Derived Type IO     |Derived-Type IO (DTIO)
                   |(DTIO)                      |

--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-09-07 21:59:27 UTC ---
link to Jerry's preliminary patch:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-07/msg00180.html

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2013-06-16
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Any progress with this PR?

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

[damian at rouson dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

--- Comment #7 from Damian Rouson <damian at rouson dot net> ---
Any updates on this PR?  I'm teaching a graduate course on modern Fortran and
will be using this feature in class.  It would be great to have an open-source
compiler that supports the feature.

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

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

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

--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Unasigning myself.

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

[damian at sourceryinstitute dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

--- Comment #9 from Damian Rouson <damian at sourceryinstitute dot org> ---
Oh boy.  I'm guessing that's an indication that there won't be any movement on
this anytime soon.  It seems this is one of only two major features missing for
full Fortran 2003 compliance -- the other being derived type parameters.  One
of the Fortran committee members recently suggested that derived type
parameters be deprecated.  I wonder if the same is true of derived type I/O. 
If the leading open-source Fortran compiler already supports some features of
Fortran 2008 and Fortran 2015 but has major features of Fortran 2003 missing a
decade after the publication of the standard, maybe that's a sign that the
feature should be removed from the language.  Thoughts?

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

[kargl at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

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

--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #9)
> Oh boy.  I'm guessing that's an indication that there won't be any movement
> on this anytime soon.  It seems this is one of only two major features
> missing for full Fortran 2003 compliance -- the other being derived type
> parameters.  One of the Fortran committee members recently suggested that
> derived type parameters be deprecated.  I wonder if the same is true of
> derived type I/O.  If the leading open-source Fortran compiler already
> supports some features of Fortran 2008 and Fortran 2015 but has major
> features of Fortran 2003 missing a decade after the publication of the
> standard, maybe that's a sign that the feature should be removed from the
> language.  Thoughts?

It's a sign that those who contribute code, do it for free
and when they have time.  No one or entity has stepped forward
to implement DTIO or provide sufficient funding.  Cray pointers
got implemented because someone at LBNL hired a summer intern.
ISO C binding got done because someone at Argonne funded a
graduate student/intern.  Almost all of my contributions came
about because I needed the feature to work.  I don't use or
need DTIO, so it's well down my list of things to hack on.

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

[damian at sourceryinstitute dot org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

--- Comment #11 from Damian Rouson <damian at sourceryinstitute dot org> ---
Thanks for the quick response.  In recent times, I’ve had the impression that
it’s harder to find developers than to find money (not that it’s all that easy
to find money).  I’ve attempted to fund gfortran development at least twice —
once successfully and once unsuccessfully. 

Damian


On Oct 2, 2014, at 10:15 PM, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
<gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298
> 
> kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
> 
>           What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 CC|                            |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
> 
> --- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Damian Rouson from comment #9)
>> Oh boy.  I'm guessing that's an indication that there won't be any movement
>> on this anytime soon.  It seems this is one of only two major features
>> missing for full Fortran 2003 compliance -- the other being derived type
>> parameters.  One of the Fortran committee members recently suggested that
>> derived type parameters be deprecated.  I wonder if the same is true of
>> derived type I/O.  If the leading open-source Fortran compiler already
>> supports some features of Fortran 2008 and Fortran 2015 but has major
>> features of Fortran 2003 missing a decade after the publication of the
>> standard, maybe that's a sign that the feature should be removed from the
>> language.  Thoughts?
> 
> It's a sign that those who contribute code, do it for free
> and when they have time.  No one or entity has stepped forward
> to implement DTIO or provide sufficient funding.  Cray pointers
> got implemented because someone at LBNL hired a summer intern.
> ISO C binding got done because someone at Argonne funded a
> graduate student/intern.  Almost all of my contributions came
> about because I needed the feature to work.  I don't use or
> need DTIO, so it's well down my list of things to hack on.
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
>From gcc-bugs-return-463159-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Oct 03 06:21:28 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-463159-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27127 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2014 06:21:28 -0000
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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27066 invoked by uid 48); 3 Oct 2014 06:21:25 -0000
From: "carrot at google dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/63447] New: merge consecutive stw to std
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 06:21:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: carrot at google dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter cf_gcctarget
Message-ID: <bug-63447-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00180.txt.bz2
Content-length: 2320

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc447

            Bug ID: 63447
           Summary: merge consecutive stw to std
           Product: gcc
           Version: 5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: carrot at google dot com
            Target: powerpc64le

In bzip2 there are code segment like:

   if (s->state == BZ_X_MAGIC_1) {
      /*initialise the save area*/
      s->save_i           = 0;
      s->save_j           = 0;
      s->save_t           = 0;
      s->save_alphaSize   = 0;
      s->save_nGroups     = 0;
      s->save_nSelectors  = 0;
      s->save_EOB         = 0;
      s->save_groupNo     = 0;
      s->save_groupPos    = 0;
      s->save_nextSym     = 0;
      s->save_nblockMAX   = 0;
      s->save_nblock      = 0;
      s->save_es          = 0;
      s->save_N           = 0;
      s->save_curr        = 0;
      s->save_zt          = 0;
      s->save_zn          = 0;
      s->save_zvec        = 0;
      s->save_zj          = 0;
      s->save_gSel        = 0;
      s->save_gMinlen     = 0;
      s->save_gLimit      = NULL;
      s->save_gBase       = NULL;
      s->save_gPerm       = NULL;
   }

trunk gcc generates:

        li 9,0
        li 10,0
        li 28,0
        li 17,0
        stw 9,-1500(30)
        stw 9,-1496(30)
        li 26,0
        li 16,0
        stw 9,-1492(30)
        stw 9,-1488(30)
        li 0,0
        li 15,0
        stw 9,-1484(30)
        stw 9,-1480(30)
        li 27,0
        li 29,0
        stw 9,-1476(30)
        stw 9,-1472(30)
        li 20,0
        li 22,0
        stw 9,-1468(30)
        stw 9,-1464(30)
        li 24,0
        li 8,0
        stw 9,-1460(30)
        stw 9,-1456(30)
        li 21,0
        li 19,0
        stw 9,-1452(30)
        stw 9,-1448(30)
        li 18,0
        li 14,0
        stw 9,-1444(30)
        stw 9,-1440(30)
        li 23,0
        li 11,0
        stw 9,-1436(30)
        stw 9,-1432(30)
        li 7,0
        li 25,0
        stw 9,-1428(30)
        stw 9,-1424(30)
        stw 9,-1420(30)

Consecutive 2 stw instructions can be merged into one std instruction.

My command line options are: -m64 -mvsx -mcpu=power8 -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

--- Comment #12 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
As a volunteer, I simply do not have the time.  I am not trying to imply any
opinion pro or con regarding DTIO.  The FORTRAN community as a whole needs to
decide what is needed and I invite anyone interested to step up and do this.

I don't think it is as difficult to do as everyone thinks.  However, it will
require a concentrated effort to 'see' what I mean.  If we could develop the
conceptual design, the implementation will just fall out.

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298

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

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

--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Starting back in on this.