Hi Dominique,
Thanks for doing this. Yes, it's OK for 5-branch as well.
Cheers
Paul
On 30 January 2016 at 15:16, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
> AFAICT PR 66707 has been fixed/ prevented/hidden by revision r226732. I have
> committed the following as obvious
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (revision 233007)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog (working copy)
> @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
> +2016-01-30 Dominique d'Humieres <domi...@lps.ens.fr>
> +
> + PR fortran/66707
> + gfortran.dg/common_23.f90: New test.
> +
> 2016-01-29 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> PR target/65546
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/common_23.f90
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/common_23.f90 (nonexistent)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/common_23.f90 (working copy)
> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
> +! { dg-do compile }
> +!
> +! PR fortran/66707
> +! Check the compilation on wrong usage of common
> +! Contributed by Gerhard Steinmetz <gerhard.steinmetz.fort...@t-online.de>
> +program p
> + integer, pointer :: a
> + common a, a ! { dg-error "is already in a COMMON block" }
> + common a
> +end
>
> I have tested (on x86_64-apple-darwin15) that revision r226732 can be
> trivially back ported to the gcc5 branch. Is it OK to do this back port?
>
> TIA
>
> Dominique
>
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits.
Albert Einstein
