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
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 common
block list was wrong and segfaulted (or infinite looped) when used la
10 matches
Mail list logo
