Hi Tobias,
** PING **
On July 01, Tobias Burnus wrote:
The following patches are pending to be reviewed:
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00142.html
OK if nobody else objects within 24 h.
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00132.html
This one is OK.
* http://gcc.gnu.
** PING **
On July 01, Tobias Burnus wrote:
The following patches are pending to be reviewed:
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00142.html
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00132.html
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00137.html
It would help me tremendously if my l
The following patches are pending to be reviewed:
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00142.html
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00141.html
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00132.html
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00137.html
* http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran
Hi Tobias,
* MODULE renaming:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-12/msg00022.html
Note: The proper PR number is 55197.
this one is also OK.
Regards
Thomas
Patch ping**2:
* MODULE renaming:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-12/msg00022.html
Note: The proper PR number is 55197.
* MOVE_ALLOC:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-12/msg00058.html
* PR55638 - elemental: VALUE w/o INTENT fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-12/msg00082.html
Tobia
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:34:30PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>On 18 April 2012 at 18:57, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:47:48AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>>>Approved but not yet committed:
>>>Bernhard:
>>>- [PATCH] gfortran testsuite: implicitly cleanup-modules, pa
On 18 April 2012 at 18:57, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:47:48AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Approved but not yet committed:
Bernhard:
- [PATCH] gfortran testsuite: implicitly cleanup-modules, part 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00065.html
Before actua
On Apr 18, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> Before actually pushing this, I ment to ask if we *want* to make
> sure that we do not add superfluous cleanup-module calls in the
> future (which would slow down testing needlessly)?
I'd run you script again in another 6 months, and o
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:47:48AM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>Approved but not yet committed:
>Bernhard:
>- [PATCH] gfortran testsuite: implicitly cleanup-modules, part 2
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00065.html
Before actually pushing this, I ment to ask if we *want* to make
sur
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:03, Tobias Burnus
wrote:
> Other patches with pending review:
> - [Patch, libfortran] Combine get_mem and internal_malloc_size
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-03/msg00127.html
As I said in the original submission, "While the patch is large, it's
also mechanical, h
Thomas Koenig wrote:
- [patch, fortran] Trim spaces on list-directed reads
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00040.html
That one was committed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-04/msg00417.html
Jerry indicated that this would also be OK for a backport; I'll
do that within a few day
Hi Tobias,
- [patch, fortran] Trim spaces on list-directed reads
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00040.html
That one was committed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-04/msg00417.html
Jerry indicated that this would also be OK for a backport; I'll
do that within a few days unless
Dear all,
first, I would like to ping my patch:
- [Patch, Fortran] PR52864 - fix actual/formal checks
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00059.html
Other patches with pending review:
- [Patch, Fortran, F03] PR52909: Procedure pointers not private to modules
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran
13 matches
Mail list logo
