Hi Paul,
this looks good to me and is OK for mainline. When it has survived a
week or two, backporting at least to 14-branch (ideally before 14.2
release) would be a good thing!
Regarding the following excerpt of the testcase:
+! Commented out lines give implicit type warnings with gfortran an
Hi Paul,
to me this looks fine. Thanks for the patch. Me having been away for some time
from gfortran, I recommend you wait for Harald's ok, too.
Regards,
Andre
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 22:43:03 +0100
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Hi Both,
>
> Thanks for the highly constructive comments. I t
Hi Both,
Thanks for the highly constructive comments. I think that I have
incorporated them fully in the attached.
OK for mainline and ...?
Paul
On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 at 08:19, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> while looking at your patch I see calls to gfc_add_init_cleanup (...,
> back)
Hi Paul,
while looking at your patch I see calls to gfc_add_init_cleanup (..., back),
while the function signature is gfc_add_init_cleanup (..., bool front). This
slightly confuses me. I would at least expect to see gfc_add_init_cleanup(...,
!back) calls. Just to get the semantics right.
Then I w
Hi Harald,
Thanks for the loophole detection! It is obvious now I see it, as is the
fix. I'll get on to it as soon as I find some time.
Cheers
Paul
On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 at 21:35, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> your approach sounds entirely reasonable.
>
> But as the following addition to
Hi Paul,
your approach sounds entirely reasonable.
But as the following addition to the testcase shows, there seem to
be loopholes left.
When I add the following to function f:
integer :: l1(size(y))
integer :: l2(size(z))
print *, size (l1), size (l2), size (z)
I g
Hi All,
I have extended the testcase - see below and have
s/dependent_decls_2/dependent_decls_2.f90/ in the ChnageLog.
Cheers
Paul
! { dg-do run }
!
! Fix for PR59104 in which the dependence on the old style function result
! was not taken into account in the ordering of auto array allocation a
