From: Mikael Morin <morin-mikael@orange.fr>
To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
Cc: Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>, fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>,
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/87851 - [9/10/11/12 Regression] Wrong return type for len_trim
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 12:55:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <34eb2346-a5e8-eddf-dc4a-87c110ad6eac@orange.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211122213031.31b6c3ba@nbbrfq>
Le 22/11/2021 à 21:30, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer a écrit :
>
> I'm just wondering loud if it would be more convenient to have a
> unsigned hidden_arg:1 bit in let's say gfc_actual_arglist that denotes
> if the argument should be const eval'ed and used before, and, most
> importantly not passed to the library. We seem to have more than just
> the index intrinsic's kind arg in that boat. And from what i read,
> powerpc will eventuall want to select quite some kind-specific library
> functions soon, depending on how this part is implemented..
>
> Maybe add SPEC_HIDDEN_ARG / SPEC_LIBRARY_SELECTOR additional
> gfc_param_spec_type if a separate bit is deemed inappropriate.
>
> Such a hidden_arg/library_selector/non_library_call_arg flag is maybe
> better than matching individual functions and strcmp the arg name.
>
Hello,
I prefer not to go that way if possible:
- because additional flags have a maintenance cost; it’s an additional
complexity in the core structures, which impacts the whole compiler;
it’s additional code to set them up, and maintainers have to understand
what they are for, where they matter and where they don’t.
- because the flag would have to be set at some point somewhere, which
would probably be by matching individual functions and argument names;
so the result would be the same.
You seem to be mostly concerned by the performance penalty, but I think
4 characters string comparisons at compile time don’t matter in
practice, as long as there aren’t millions of them.
Regarding the powerpc floating point representation and kind problem,
let’s see what we need when we really need it. ;-)
Mikael
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-23 11:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-19 19:47 Harald Anlauf
2021-11-21 11:46 ` Mikael Morin
2021-11-22 18:17 ` Harald Anlauf
2021-11-22 20:30 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2021-11-23 11:55 ` Mikael Morin [this message]
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=34eb2346-a5e8-eddf-dc4a-87c110ad6eac@orange.fr \
--to=morin-mikael@orange.fr \
--cc=anlauf@gmx.de \
--cc=fortran@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rep.dot.nop@gmail.com \
--cc=tkoenig@netcologne.de \
/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).