Hi Tobias,
Replying to your last two messages here and attaching revised patches.
On 16/12/2024 22:34, Tobias Burnus wrote:
I have not looked in depth at the patch, but managed to
write C-ism code, which caused a segfault (due to a missing "call"),
after gfortran issued a reasonable error. Can
Hi Andre,
It looks good to me.
Thanks
Paul
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 at 14:58, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I did an ooppsie with the patch for 107635. Attached is a patch that fixes
> this. Essentially the regexp was to complicated for what was needed. So
> now we
> just count the numbe
Hi all,
I did an ooppsie with the patch for 107635. Attached is a patch that fixes
this. Essentially the regexp was to complicated for what was needed. So now we
just count the number of occurrences of caf_get_by_ct, which has to be four.
Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for mainline?
Rega
Hi Paul,
please run the style-checker on the patch before pushing.
Furthermore, shouldn't that
+changed, the dtype updating and the correct rank used. */
rather be
+changed, the dtype updated and the correct rank used. */
^^
B
Hi Paul,
thanks for the quick review. Pushed as gcc-15-6425-gdae506f73bd
Thanks again,
Andre
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 15:13:50 +
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> It looks good to me.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 at 14:58, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
>
> > Hi all
On 12/23/24 9:19 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Dear all,
while preparing the testcase null_actual_7.f90 for commit r15-6408,
I overlooked a corner case, leading to a regression (PR118179).
The obvious solution is to extend the suppression of copying back
the pointer also for NULL actual arguments to
Dear all,
while preparing the testcase null_actual_7.f90 for commit r15-6408,
I overlooked a corner case, leading to a regression (PR118179).
The obvious solution is to extend the suppression of copying back
the pointer also for NULL actual arguments to pointer dummies
with no specified intent.
R
Am 23.12.24 um 18:51 schrieb Jerry D:
On 12/23/24 9:19 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Dear all,
while preparing the testcase null_actual_7.f90 for commit r15-6408,
I overlooked a corner case, leading to a regression (PR118179).
The obvious solution is to extend the suppression of copying back
the poi
Hi PA,
(next try, for some reasons, my original email disappeared.)
Paul-Antoine Arras wrote:
Replying to your last two messages here and attaching revised patches.
Regarding the C++ and ME patches:
==> 0003-C-fix.patch <==
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] C++ fix
==> 0004-ME-fixes.patch <==
Subject:
Not many newlib targets (IIRC the only targets where
int32_t is a typedef of long int) build libgfortran.
Building and testing fortran testsuite is usually a cheap
way to get additional coverage for a port, except that a
couple of times a year, there are these silly type-related
breakages.
Maybe
10 matches
Mail list logo
