From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A178C3858D32; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 13:16:39 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A178C3858D32 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1b01dac1a82so16088105ad.2; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 06:16:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1685798198; x=1688390198; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=aYD5NdTVAlbIqvNRa+EWjzskCxUJJr/Ye30i+V9ihfg=; b=UpABa+smebYAny9R2XINPZuy0ONeKIwMo9AFClFvsMXtx3W4vmfU+59mGwRCGfCyFd UJLUhojf1WlVLCs538OYOviJCPDavIGL+kvf7RzY2KtkJA66PlAryPxbSflth611rVU2 hCwA25+VaAQmivz7y+SiMEZE6xpqo2raEZzDvAiOjnpFMzmq+KaoHi57eJ7s+0WClVJ/ l+01Hc7dY2h8YANDp6g+qFet6uHhgV0OJf8KZwomSEz8q5GLzcEMzX4yY+JV+Q5zSH6b XzRosOvQ7Xlj81l+soD92bqqdxQQ54WMXpXnMYZV9f4mI3wum/tfzwQc80n0M3EWXh7i x9xQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1685798198; x=1688390198; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=aYD5NdTVAlbIqvNRa+EWjzskCxUJJr/Ye30i+V9ihfg=; b=JVt6yu7/qL6gk5om9ej2XYSLRl7lXayP7RmN6oWAe/0YfarRAv+JZn5JwxAsmAR62m RXmPHXZvuwhFNRCVg2fVcEFDMswy/fUXkP1dZdDa1mxnnpK50HS9gmxcUMUq5DPhqWVK XwjvyUwKlOVDyJ+/Gy8YMyxS5Gno2Yz4fkrHHbWUncHcE5tqjlUSnSGETA8QCrjOPsfk v03HWlyWpm+pDovscjbZ522wvuDrj53+MvE00uyjE49PxgYVjMYuwYUASoknGS6+Sp0r GXd1J1+3bubRSYJZkpTTRO7cYiJG5P2xbm5LMTytY3h3gLwXP/ftJAkl5AXpBYJu1f2g WcPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDzIM7mDNA+JkHktWvlvyynxGv3bbzipdbhUrKlowSuZzGBgUFzp qKcXZxkRxfsWBPuNjWC/f09EyrcG7pcW6ADffqUurkrA X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6IEW16V7VqxU4ZwEdnusN16C7piZM6TwCcxQH9s/dSlkvYIGV5gxWtPXvnT4Zghml7X0CLPq5Q45CUqUpjxfI= X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:120f:b0:1b1:9d43:ad4c with SMTP id l15-20020a170903120f00b001b19d43ad4cmr1458569plh.40.1685798198340; Sat, 03 Jun 2023 06:16:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <552d5ed3-d137-b9dd-7b67-e561070aa001@netcologne.de> In-Reply-To: <552d5ed3-d137-b9dd-7b67-e561070aa001@netcologne.de> From: Paul Richard Thomas Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 14:16:26 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37336 finalization To: Thomas Koenig Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Thomas, I want to get something approaching correct finalization to the distros, which implies 12-branch at present. Hopefully I can do the same with associate in a month or two's time. I am dithering about changing the F2003/08 part of finalization since the default is 2018 compliance. That said, it does need a change since the suppression of constructor finalization is also suppressing finalization of function results within the compilers. I'll do that first, perhaps? Cheers Paul On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 at 06:50, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > I propose to backport > > r13-6747-gd7caf313525a46f200d7f5db1ba893f853774aee to 12-branch very > > soon. > > Is this something that we usually do? > > While finalization was basically broken before, some people still used > working subsets (or subsets that were broken, and they adapted or > wrote their code accordingly). > > What is the general opinion on that? I'm undecided. > > > Before that, I propose to remove the F2003/2008 finalization of > > structure and array constructors in 13- and 14-branches. I can see why > > it was removed from the standard in a correction to F2008 and think > > that it is likely to cause endless confusion and maintenance > > complications. However, finalization of function results within > > constructors will be retained. > > That, I agree with. Should it be noted somewhere as an intentional > deviation from the standard? > > Best regards > > Thomas > -- "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein