Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37336 finalization

[Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>]

Hi Paul, all,

On 6/3/23 15:16, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> I want to get something approaching correct finalization to the
> distros, which implies 12-branch at present. Hopefully I can do the
> same with associate in a month or two's time.

IMHO it is not only distros, but also installations at (scientific)
computing centers with a larger user base and a large software stack.
Migrating to a different major version of gcc/gfortran is not a trivial
task for them.

I'd fully support the idea of backporting the finalization fixes, as
IIUC this on the one hand touches a rather isolated part, and on the
other hand already got quite some testing.  It is also already in the
13-branch (or only mostly?).  Given that 12.3 was released recently
and 12.4 is far away, there'd be sufficient time to fix any fallout.

Regarding the associate fixes, we could get as much of those into 13.2,
which we'd normally expect in just a few months.  As long as spare time
to work on gfortran is limited, I'd rather prefer to get as much fixed
for that release.

(This is not a no: I simply expect that real regression testing for the
associate changes may take more time.)

> I am dithering about changing the F2003/08 part of finalization since
> the default is 2018 compliance. That said, it does need a change since
> the suppression of constructor finalization is also suppressing
> finalization of function results within the compilers. I'll do that
> first, perhaps?

That sounds like a good idea.

Cheers,
Harald

> Cheers
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 at 06:50, Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>>> I propose to backport
>>> r13-6747-gd7caf313525a46f200d7f5db1ba893f853774aee to 12-branch very
>>> soon.
>>
>> Is this something that we usually do?
>>
>> While finalization was basically broken before, some people still used
>> working subsets (or subsets that were broken, and they adapted or
>> wrote their code accordingly).
>>
>> What is the general opinion on that?  I'm undecided.
>>
>>> Before that, I propose to remove the F2003/2008 finalization of
>>> structure and array constructors in 13- and 14-branches. I can see why
>>> it was removed from the standard in a correction to F2008 and think
>>> that it is likely to cause endless confusion and maintenance
>>> complications. However, finalization of function results within
>>> constructors will be retained.
>>
>> That, I agree with.  Should it be noted somewhere as an intentional
>> deviation from the standard?
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>          Thomas
>>
> 
> 
> --
> "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
> - Albert Einstein
>