Manuel López-Ibáñez a écrit:
> 2015-09-15 Manuel López-Ibáñez
>
> PR pretty-print/67567
> * resolve.c (resolve_fl_procedure): Work-around when iface->module
> == NULL.
This is OK, thanks.
--
Dodji
On 20 September 2015 at 23:05, FX wrote:
>> If you can fix the Fortran part, then that would be nice, but it
>> should not hold up my patch since my patch changes nothing in the
>> output of Fortran. It just allows catching this type of errors when
>> checking is enabled.
>
> The patch includes a
> If you can fix the Fortran part, then that would be nice, but it
> should not hold up my patch since my patch changes nothing in the
> output of Fortran. It just allows catching this type of errors when
> checking is enabled.
The patch includes a Fortran part, and if we can get it fixed when thi
On 20 September 2015 at 21:14, FX wrote:
>> PING: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg01219.html
>
> Given that this comes from submodules, which were recently introduced by
> Paul, I hoped he could comment. Paul?
If you can fix the Fortran part, then that would be nice, but it
should
> PING: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg01219.html
Given that this comes from submodules, which were recently introduced by Paul,
I hoped he could comment. Paul?
FX
PING: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg01219.html
On 16 September 2015 at 19:45, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> Fortran passes NULL where a non-null string is expected by the pretty-printer,
> which causes a sanitizer warning. This could have been found earlier by using
> gcc_checking_
Fortran passes NULL where a non-null string is expected by the pretty-printer,
which causes a sanitizer warning. This could have been found earlier by using
gcc_checking_assert. Even if the assertion is false, the result is just an
incomplete diagnostic, thus it seems more user-friendly to assert o
