------- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-05 10:43 ------- (In reply to comment #29) > I'll address the comments raised on the mailing lists, > but since they all suggest possible cleanups to the way > LIBGFOR_TARGET_ILP32 (and now LIBGFOR_TARGET_LP64) are implemented, I'd > prefer my patch to go in unchanged (as it matches existing practice) and > possibly implement cleanups as followups if deemed worthwhile.
I do agree with you. Can you re-submit the patch on the fortran ml for approval? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15234
