* [patch, wwwdocs] Mention finalization
@ 2023-03-19 8:15 Thomas Koenig
2023-03-19 11:41 ` Paul Richard Thomas
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Koenig @ 2023-03-19 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-patches, fortran
Hi,
the sentence below seems a bit short for such a huge undertaking,
but I could not think of anything else to day.
Tested with "tidy -e".
OK for wwwdocs?
Best regards
Thomas
diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
index c8d757b6..a4b71ffa 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
@@ -373,7 +373,12 @@ a work-in-progress.</p>
<!-- <h3 id="d">D</h3> -->
-<!-- <h3 id="fortran">Fortran</h3> -->
+<h3 id="fortran">Fortran</h3>
+<ul>
+ <li>
+ Finalization is now fully supported.
+ </li>
+</ul>
<!-- <h3 id="go">Go</h3> -->
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch, wwwdocs] Mention finalization
2023-03-19 8:15 [patch, wwwdocs] Mention finalization Thomas Koenig
@ 2023-03-19 11:41 ` Paul Richard Thomas
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Paul Richard Thomas @ 2023-03-19 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Koenig; +Cc: gcc-patches, fortran
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2028 bytes --]
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for that! I think that your one-liner says it all :-)
There are three PRs left open that PR37336 depends on:
PR65347: Is partially fixed. The F2003/8 feature of finalization of a
structure constructor within an array constructor doesn't work. I wonder if
a compile option -finalize-constructors might not be better than
-std=f2003/8?
PR84472: I need to investigate if it is fixed or not. It behaves like one
of the other brands, which complains about a double free. The other brand
does not have this problem. At one stage, I nulled pointer components
before finalization of a function result but removed it because it is not
required by the standard. It might well be a good idea, just on the grounds
that smart-pointers and resource managers seem to be the main real-life use
of finalization and pointer components loom large with them.
PR91316: An impure final call is allowed within a pure procedure at the
moment. Malcolm Cohen convinced me that this should be disallowed.
If the finalization patch has survived a few weeks on mainline without
causing problems, I am inclined to backport to 12-branch. Would that be
acceptable to one and all?
Cheers
Paul
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 at 08:15, Thomas Koenig via Fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the sentence below seems a bit short for such a huge undertaking,
> but I could not think of anything else to day.
>
> Tested with "tidy -e".
>
> OK for wwwdocs?
>
> Best regards
>
> Thomas
>
>
> diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
> index c8d757b6..a4b71ffa 100644
> --- a/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
> +++ b/htdocs/gcc-13/changes.html
> @@ -373,7 +373,12 @@ a work-in-progress.</p>
>
> <!-- <h3 id="d">D</h3> -->
>
> -<!-- <h3 id="fortran">Fortran</h3> -->
> +<h3 id="fortran">Fortran</h3>
> +<ul>
> + <li>
> + Finalization is now fully supported.
> + </li>
> +</ul>
>
> <!-- <h3 id="go">Go</h3> -->
>
--
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" -
Albert Einstein
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-19 11:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-03-19 8:15 [patch, wwwdocs] Mention finalization Thomas Koenig
2023-03-19 11:41 ` Paul Richard Thomas
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).