Hi Mikael, hi all,
I have checked that the patch (my initial one for pr59678) does compile
and test fine. Given that the patch lives in trunk-6 for quite some
time now, without any major complaints, I approve to commit to gcc-5.
Given the patch was reviewed by Paul already, I don't see any reason
why it should need a second review for gcc-5.
Regards,
Andre
PS: Note, I don't have reviewer status.
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 15:28:20 +0200
Mikael Morin <mikael.mo...@sfr.fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> my recent PR67721 patch [1] introduced a regression [2] on the 5 branch.
> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg02048.html
> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818
>
> The patch [1] introduces more deep copies, but deep copies have been
> somewhat broken, until Andre fixed them on trunk [3][4].
> [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-04/msg00110.html
> [4] https://gcc.gnu.org/r222477
>
> I'm proposing to backport that fix on the 5 branch.
> It looks reasonable to me (albeit bigger than I would like), has no
> known regression so far, and Paul even proposed it for backport at the
> time he reviewed it [5].
> [5] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-04/msg00101.html
>
> The backported patch exhibits no regression (in either check-fortran or
> check-target-libgomp) on x86_64-linux, and it fixes the
> check-target-libgomp regression. The latter has been confirmed by
> Dominique and H.J.Lu in the PR comments [6][7]
> [6] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818#c7
> [7] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67818#c8
>
> No new test, the failure is already in the libgomp testsuite.
> OK for the 5 branch?
>
> Mikael
>
>
>
>
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
