Thanks, Jerry, Pushed as r17-5612. On to bug3 and bug15 now.
Cheers Paul On Mon, 26 Oct 2026 at 13:50, Jerry Delisle <[email protected]> wrote: > > ```Yes, this is OK, thanks``` > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026, 9:38 AM Jerry Delisle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, this is OK. Thanks for the work. >> >> Jerry >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2026, 8:03 AM Paul Richard Thomas >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> The Jerry/Claude review revealed: >>> Verdict: Blocker: new ICEs for MOLD= an assumed-LEN dummy, a >>> deferred-LEN allocatable, or a component. Blocker: a module procedure >>> result in a submodule now ICEs. There is no test for bug23. >>> >>> These issues are all fixed in the attached patch, which also passes >>> regression testing. >>> >>> OK for mainline? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 at 13:36, Paul Richard Thomas >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > bug16-mold-loses-len.f90 failed to give the correct result because >>> > ALLOCATE with MOLD= did not propagate the LEN parameter. >>> > >>> > The ChangeLog provides quite enough explanation of what the patch does. >>> > >>> > Passes regtesting on FC44/x86_64. OK for mainline. >>> > >>> > Cheers >>> > >>> > Paul
