Hi Mikael,
This is OK for trunk.
Thanks for resurrecting the patch.
Cheers
Paul
On 6 August 2015 at 12:11, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Le 29/07/2015 20:35, Mikael Morin a écrit :
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm unburrying the patch from the thread starting at:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/m
Le 29/07/2015 20:35, Mikael Morin a écrit :
Hello,
I'm unburrying the patch from the thread starting at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00439.html
I provide the patch in two flavors read-only (without whitespace
changes) and write-only (with them).
This has been tested on x86_64
Hello,
I'm unburrying the patch from the thread starting at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-03/msg00439.html
I provide the patch in two flavors read-only (without whitespace
changes) and write-only (with them).
This has been tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
Mikael
Given that we are now in stage 1: Mikael and Bud, what's the status of
this patch?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-03/msg00098.html
Tobias
On January 13, 2014 22:18, Mikael Morin wrote:
Hello,
Le 10/03/2014 03:15, jimmie.da...@l-3com.com a écrit :
Index: gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
Hello,
Le 10/03/2014 03:15, jimmie.da...@l-3com.com a écrit :
> Index: gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c
> ===
> --- gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c (revision 208437)
> +++ gcc/gcc/fortran/symbol.c (working copy)
> @@ -3069,56 +3069,56 @@
>
>
From: Mikael Morin [mikael.mo...@sfr.fr]
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 3:40 PM
To: Davis, Bud @ SSG - Link; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; fort...@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: patch fortran, pr 59746, internal compiler error : segmentation
fault
> - if
Le 09/03/2014 20:47, jimmie.da...@l-3com.com a écrit :
> Comments from Mikael:
>
> #1. Please merge the two ifs; it seems they have exactly the same scope
> after the patch.
>
> #2. This comment applies to the TOUPPER thing below...
> .. so it should be put here. Also the indentation is wron
Comments from Mikael:
#1. Please merge the two ifs; it seems they have exactly the same scope
after the patch.
#2. This comment applies to the TOUPPER thing below...
.. so it should be put here. Also the indentation is wrong.
#3.This is unnecessary.
===
All corre
Hello,
Le 09/03/2014 13:59, jimmie.da...@l-3com.com a écrit :
>
>
> The code would only remove a variable from a common block if it was just
> defined in the previous statement. The PR showed a case where a pre-existing
> variable was put in the common block. When it was not removed, the comm
