From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-513010-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31151 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2019 22:53:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 31131 invoked by uid 89); 11 Nov 2019 22:53:58 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:529, H*f:sk:CAO9iq9, H*i:sk:CAO9iq9, H*MI:sk:F0O5zDw
X-HELO: mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de
Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de (HELO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de) (81.169.146.216) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 22:53:57 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1573512835;	s=strato-dkim-0002; d=tkoenig.net;	h=In-Reply-To:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:	X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender;	bh=nponc10w/ndiLh/bTc3Cvgzwx75jyEuq2pSCSq+0Bx8=;	b=GgiK0yl0wXamScqx4SEB0krwtwusZBLe0nlRBTVg/vSseWztTV8+gnbqtxq/BzWqbl	hOXjTuhZKSALGtqCgEph1Temjq1ys/7b9OkC8srWotTPb4QZsvYt/frYby2M/9rZO547	SI1aTRpNO0xfrSGIiTwbwKOoaQJPuW9TNI1ypqD75M6U5td7VBe4lVjz/iNgzsMuEtIN	nxrMORQoxVpLKCCZ6oouxEFgsx1ngwtmkhaz5BZv2ekwPzdYPuRXGZYR7LeqocAs3CJN	ltE2o9t4RKpq1AoFGEs0kYkVGWvP4pS3KHXFOljf1O683SJuVSKmNe8wIiqWHEF6MOwM	WAkw==
Received: from [IPv6:2001:4dd6:2b98:0:7285:c2ff:fe6c:992d]	by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 44.29.0 AUTH)	with ESMTPSA id q00c85vABMrsph7	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (curve secp521r1 with 521 ECDH bits, eq. 15360 bits RSA))	(Client did not present a certificate);	Mon, 11 Nov 2019 23:53:54 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [patch, fortran] Load scalar intent-in variables at the beginning of procedures
To: Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.janne@gmail.com>
Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <48286910-ebbb-10e4-488b-8c96e505375c@tkoenig.net> <CAO9iq9FNdOELT3hcoiLORgxF1C67HYC+HFQ+F0O5zDwG7udERA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_K=c3=b6nig?= <tk@tkoenig.net>
Message-ID: <7e3e8ce4-e7ed-c583-80dd-51bf7f9b2d15@tkoenig.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 23:02:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO9iq9FNdOELT3hcoiLORgxF1C67HYC+HFQ+F0O5zDwG7udERA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg00803.txt.bz2

Hi Janne,

> Wouldn't it be even better to pass scalar intent(in) variables by
> value? The obvious objection of course is ABI, but for procedures with
> an explicit interface we're not following any particular ABI anyways?

The problem with that is that we don't know when we compile a procedure
if it will be called with an explicit interface or not.

The user can always add an interface block for a stand-alone procedure.

Regards

	Thomas