From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30591 invoked by alias); 14 Jul 2011 10:14:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 30575 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jul 2011 10:14:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ey0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-ey0-f175.google.com) (209.85.215.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:14:10 +0000 Received: by eye27 with SMTP id 27so54194eye.20 for ; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.15.209 with SMTP id f57mr684055eef.118.1310638448764; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.235.236.18] (ip236-18.wireless.lu.se [130.235.236.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q22sm81751eea.52.2011.07.14.03.14.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E1EC16F.1080602@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Carrera User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110424 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobias Burnus CC: gfortran , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] Add caf_runtime_error to libgfortran/caf/single.c References: <4E1EBB75.4070205@gmail.com> <4E1EBF23.60307@net-b.de> In-Reply-To: <4E1EBF23.60307@net-b.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-07/txt/msg01128.txt.bz2 On 07/14/2011 12:04 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote: > I was wondering - based on the discussion - whether one should remove > the "int error" argument from caf_runtime_error and simply use "exit > (EXIT_FAILURE)" for all exit() calls in mpi.c/single.c, cf. > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-07/msg00140.html > But one can also do so as follow up patch. You are the boss. The message I got from Nick's post is that it doesn't matter much and that you could even get surprising behaviour because EXIT_SUCCESS is not required to be zero and EXIT_FAILURE is not required to be non-zero. But maybe I missed the point. So it's up to you. Cheers, Daniel. -- I'm not overweight, I'm undertall.