Thanks, I'll take a look at it. It's actually a great idea, I completely missed that the fact that it's possible to do that.<br><br>ำียยฯิม, 4 อมั 2013ว. ะฯฬฺุฯืมิลฬุ Duncan Sands <<a href="mailto:baldrick@free.fr">baldrick@free.fr</a>> ะษำมฬ:<br>
> Hi,<br>><br>> On 24/04/13 21:43, Alex L wrote:<br>>><br>>> If you are going to work on improvements in this area, then it would<br>>> help to add them to the proposal (maybe that will move other, not so<br>
>> important, features out of scope).<br>>><br>>> That would be a good idea indeed.<br>>><br>>> The EQUIVALENCE keyword is deprecated, still I don't know if it is still<br>>> widely used in F77 code. I think one of the main resaons it was deprecated<br>
>> is that it voids all type checking<br>>><br>>> Thanks, I did miss this one.<br>>><br>>> FWIW, this is still widely used in F77 code (as are common blocks). This is,<br>>> essentially, how you get 'union' in Fortran. I think it is not used much in<br>
>> modern Fortran, however. I recommend that we should at least think about how<br>>> to support these various things, but only actually do it up front if it is<br>>> in BLAS.<br>>><br>
>> I just did a search through BLAS sources and EQUIVALENCE isn't used there. I<br>>> might consider getting rid of it for the proposal. The COMMON blocks aren't used<br>>> in BLAS too.<br>><br>
> you may want to see what LLVM IR dragonegg produces for these. When<br>> investigating tricky cases, seeing what an existing LLVM based Fortran<br>> compiler produces could be quite helpful.<br>><br>> Ciao, Duncan.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>> LLVM Developers mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu">LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu</a> <a href="http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu">http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev</a><br>>