From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 76731 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2017 08:53:07 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 76704 invoked by uid 89); 24 Nov 2017 08:53:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=HTo:U*tkoenig X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-yb0-f176.google.com Received: from mail-yb0-f176.google.com (HELO mail-yb0-f176.google.com) (209.85.213.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:53:05 +0000 Received: by mail-yb0-f176.google.com with SMTP id i126so8034141ybi.12; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:53:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wPRJ8GCvTGmo7ZaSShDt5N8Ro43lns9MXQu6Ctlvd2g=; b=DHpKBkMb8a50kZZOm/c6EmF6nQayryeha9gDSEUQbnF42892vT4XGhEuW0xvu1wxvo ZsNbYk0VvinonBbCAmSOcQeXxou7uma3YW6Kv+D9eUar0NXBIrJXZ96g4n6EsdyDj983 Gr+j51UTNtTY2FHyLSzXNnN5MKHWJ9lcAYZPni2kXHABB8STWS81D7RC4TJegY4F5ul3 YN+j3MfYndfzXP5MXtK4nKCrfd14ze6+PW8kv4Jj64tgUlVbbpS1VKQDCXSE33TFW+K2 TW+aiFXWkWNFdkeHTnAxuNe3jaw/zn/fe92rogvhhn549HNHme4AaKc9PFAJnj+WKMUn rAcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX4NH0XSqR2fYLsp73pbKfMO6oUeit2fAiPndh3o6fDvxPCKHHuC rqEkfSUSt+jyfodva7zD6zLcN/c2zq0Wep3ZSLs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZiFbtca0oN7yfpsjAFsD9VKONmteGEtyqYoa1XRwiFDCwt2kyfA4wsq2YXlj/M889poG/BtBCMWWlzvZVNAk0= X-Received: by 10.37.61.129 with SMTP id k123mr17176606yba.44.1511513583841; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:53:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.129.163.146 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:53:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <717c0598-cc09-390a-72fa-906b2a4d106e@netcologne.de> References: <44c7b39b-d849-e31a-7175-80bf1a348908@netcologne.de> <03e85917-b506-0d8b-78b0-263c371cba6a@netcologne.de> <09d35ad1-6883-0372-7a1a-840c8c4b07f9@netcologne.de> <781c7918-5600-c488-0528-0c351ea04442@netcologne.de> <717c0598-cc09-390a-72fa-906b2a4d106e@netcologne.de> From: Janne Blomqvist Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 09:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [patch, fortran] Implement maxloc and minloc for character To: Thomas Koenig Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg02186.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hi Janne, > >> However, to continue my nitpicking (sorry!), it seems that in many >> cases compare_fcn still takes an integer length argument. Could you >> make that gfc_charlen_type as well? Or maybe size_t, since the >> argument is passed straight to memcmp{_char4} anyway? Please consider >> such a patch pre-approved. Thanks! > > > Committed as r255109. > > I had missed out on the non-inlined maxval and maxloc versions... You still missed two places. Committed r255135 with the fixes. > The fun with max* and min* intrinsics is not yet over. Maxval and > Minval have yet to be implemented for character arguments, and then > there is the BACK argument to MAXLOC. > > Maybe (while we are breaking compatibility) we should just add BACK > to the front end, reject it whith a "not yet implemented" message, > add the argument to the library and worry about implementation > later. > > What do you think? Yeah, makes sense I suppose. -- Janne Blomqvist