On 1 December 2015 at 15:52, Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> These three function used a hardcoded buffer of 100 but would be better
>> off to base off GFC_MAX_SYMBOL_LEN which denotes the maximum length of a
>> name in any of our supported standards (63 as of f2003 ff.).
>
> Please use xasprintf() instead (and free the result, or course). One
> of my backburner projects is to get rid of these static symbol
> buffers, and use dynamic buffers (or the symbol table) instead. We
> IIRC already have some ugly hacks by using hashing to get around
> GFC_MAX_SYMBOL_LEN when handling mangled symbols. Your patch doesn't
> make the situation worse per se, but if you're going to fix it, lets
> do it properly.
I see.
/scratch/src/gcc-6.0.mine/gcc/fortran$ git grep
"^[[:space:]]*char[[:space:]][[:space:]]*[^[;[:space:]]*\[" | wc -l
142
/scratch/src/gcc-6.0.mine/gcc/fortran$ git grep "xasprintf" | wc -l
32
What about memory fragmentation when switching to heap-based allocation?
Or is there consensus that these are in the noise compared to other
parts of the compiler?
BTW:
$ git grep APO
io.c: static const char *delim[] = { "APOSTROPHE", "QUOTE", "NONE", NULL };
io.c: static const char *delim[] = { "APOSTROPHE", "QUOTE", "NONE", NULL };
> Ok for GCC 7 stage1 with these changes. I don't think it's worth
> putting it into GCC 6 at this point anymore, unless this is actually
> fixing some bugs that are visible to users?
Not visible, no, can wait easily.
