From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26543 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2008 12:10:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 26511 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Oct 2008 12:10:49 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:09:49 +0000 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id t39so152980ugd.10 for ; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.45.17 with SMTP id s17mr2222323ebs.144.1224850185773; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.66.19 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <854832d40810240509lfb8b436p4f9431ae051bffcb@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:01:00 -0000 From: "Janus Weil" To: "Paul Richard Thomas" Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 36322/36463 Cc: "Fortran List" , gcc-patches In-Reply-To: <339c37f20810240424i2a974b7bvaa07dd112053f7fe@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <854832d40810240244j2bc91d2fo527f0f8137520092@mail.gmail.com> <339c37f20810240424i2a974b7bvaa07dd112053f7fe@mail.gmail.com> 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: 2008-10/txt/msg01042.txt.bz2 Hi Paul, > I have a question, though: Is this patch not substantially > duplicating the interface mapping that goes on in trans-expr.c?(This > only occurred to me a few minutes ago) Good question. Actually I was not aware of that mapping code, therefore it may well be that there is some duplication in my patch (theoretically). OTOH, if I understand correctly, the code that you are referring to is used to map the actual args to the formal args in a function call, which is of course not what I need to do with my patch, though there might be similarities. What one needs to do for "PROCEDURE(i) :: p" is to make a complete copy of the interface i, including all the formal arguments etc. So it involves not so much a mapping, as merely a duplication of an interface, which seems to be quite a difference to me. But obviously I am not familiar with the mapping code, and so I might be completely wrong. Maybe there is indeed the possibility to exploit some of the mapping code for the patch. If you have an idea on how that could work please let me know. I will try to investigate this. Cheers, Janus