Dear Tobias, I'll take a look this afternoon.
Cheers Paul On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de> wrote: > I would like to *ping*. > > Additionally, I attached an updated patch as the tree-walking patch is now > in. The updated patch is also available at > https://userpage.physik.fu-berlin.de/~tburnus/tmp/constructor.diff > > > On 11/06/2011 04:29 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote: >> >> this patch fixes as collateral effect PR 37829 (alias PR 45190) where >> C_PTR/C_FUNPTR occurred when use associating a module using them, if one >> additionally uses iso_fc_binding directly. >> >> The main part of this patch, however, is for PR 39427 (alias 45190): >> Allowing generic functions to have the same name as a derived type, which is >> a Fortran 2003 feature. In expressions, the generic functions have a higher >> precedence then the structure constructor. Note that the functions are not >> required to return the derived type. >> >> This feature allows one to create something which looks similar to >> constructors in other OOP languages, except that static constructor >> functions do not exist. >> >> This patch implements them by creating for each derived type two symbols >> (symtrees): One for the derived type and one for the generic function, which >> links to the derived type. To distinguish them, the derived type starts with >> a capital letter in the symtree. In order to facilitate the error-message >> handling, the symbol itself remains in lower case. >> >> The main challenges were to ensure that one gets the derived type when >> needed and to store them properly in the module. The most time consuming >> part was to find all the places one had to change that issues with module >> reading could turn up much later; for instance at resolution time of a scope >> which had read that module. In total, it took 18 months between the first >> draft patch (cf. PR39427 comment 6, 12-14) and the final patch. Although, >> the patch looked almost working by then, it took many, many, many hours to >> fix the issues. Also the RFC patch, posted 6 days ago, had more issues than >> I had hoped for. >> >> The attached patch had been build on x86-64-linux and successfully >> regtested (gfortran and libgomp). (A full bootstrap of an almost-ready >> version was done as well; I had to rebuild because I found some left-over >> commented code blocks.) >> >> Additionally, I tried the previous patches with several programs to reduce >> the likelihood that it breaks real-world code. In particular, the very >> latest version of the patch was used to compile FLEUR, Elk, Octopus and the >> Polyhedron benchmark. Yesterday evening's version was used to compile the >> Exciting code (which includes the sensitive FoX Fortran XML library), CP2K, >> PSBLAS and FGSL. With a slightly older version, I also successfully compiled >> Tonto, Quantum Espresso and Abinit. >> >> OK for the trunk? >> >> Tobias >> >> PS: I have also included a patch for the website, i.e. >> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html#fortran >> >> PPS: As mentioned in the attachment, the patch includes the tree-walking >> patch, which was posted before. It's a really an independent bug, even if it >> only exposed with the constructor patch. I can either commit it before or as >> part of this patch. See also >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-11/msg00026.html > -- The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. --Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
