Hi All,
After pushing the patch to fix comment 5 of this PR, I noticed that I had
not taken account of the commented out tests in associate_69.f90. The fix
is trivial, being a minor tweak to yesterday's patch, and has been pushed
as r15-4835- after regtesting. The testcases associate_69.f90 an
Le 30/10/2024 à 23:00, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
given that Jakub changed lots of whitespace in r15-4624-g50332a4fdd3243,
you may want to rebase your patches onto HEAD of trunk.
May I also suggest to attach the patches instead of mailing them inline?
Hello,
I checked with today's master, didn'
On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 10:00:29AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> during testing, I noticed that parameters of the form
> - mod(u1,u2) were rejected with an unknown type. The fix
> is straightforward, but required an adjustment to another
> test case.
>
> Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
>
Ye
Hello world,
during testing, I noticed that parameters of the form
- mod(u1,u2) were rejected with an unknown type. The fix
is straightforward, but required an adjustment to another
test case.
Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
* resolve.cc (resolve_operator): Als
