Re: [fortran, patches] Two short patches to review

2011-11-09 Thread FX
> Although I suspect you've been lurking in the background, > welcome back to the land of gfortran hacking. Your first > screw up is free, additional screw ups require you to > fix your screw up and fix an additional bug as your reward. Attached patch committed as revision 181200. FX convert

Re: [fortran, patches] Two short patches to review

2011-11-08 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 12:57:29AM +0100, FX wrote: > >> -- 50404: refuse to have a CLOSE statement without a UNIT > >> (F2008's C908 "A file-unit-number shall be specified in a > >> close-spec-list") (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50404) > > > > jerry already approved this one. > >

Re: [fortran, patches] Two short patches to review

2011-11-08 Thread FX
>> -- 50404: refuse to have a CLOSE statement without a UNIT >> (F2008's C908 "A file-unit-number shall be specified in a >> close-spec-list") (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50404) > > jerry already approved this one. And I committed it as rev. , with a slight modification to add a

Re: [fortran, patches] Two short patches to review

2011-11-08 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 12:13:10AM +0100, FX wrote: > PRs 50540 and 50404 each contain a short patch, written by Steve. > Both patches are straightforward: > > -- 50404: refuse to have a CLOSE statement without a UNIT > (F2008's C908 "A file-unit-number shall be specified in a > close-spec-list")

[fortran, patches] Two short patches to review

2011-11-08 Thread FX
PRs 50540 and 50404 each contain a short patch, written by Steve. Both patches are straightforward: -- 50404: refuse to have a CLOSE statement without a UNIT (F2008's C908 "A file-unit-number shall be specified in a close-spec-list") (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50404) -- 50