Hi Paul,
thanks for the review. I have experienced that git is a bit picky, when
a patch got line breaks from a mailer or something. I usually do `git am
<patch-file>` that also adds the log entry and can `git reset --hard
origin/master` easily to get back to the state before the patch
application.
I will monitor for coarray faults, sure.
Merged as: gcc-15-2137-g18f3b223b97
Regards,
Andre
On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:59:45 +0100
Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> The code is standard boilerplate in handling arrays and looks OK to
> me. That said, I know next to nothing about the handling of co-arrays
> in gfortran. I hope that others can pick up anything that I have
> missed.
>
> Since you are likely to produce a stream (and have already) of
> co-array patches and we are very light on the ground, I suggest that
> you take responsibility for keeping an eye out for reports of errors
> or regressions with a view to correcting them on the fly.
>
> I tried to apply the patch but git apply responded with "error:
> corrupt patch at line 79". That said I cannot for the life of me see
> what is wrong with it.
>
> Some minor nits:
> < into account. Furthermore were different cobounds in distinct
> < procedure parameter lists mixed up, i.e. the last definition was
> taken ---
> > into account. Furthermore different cobounds in distinct procedure
> > parameter lists were mixed up, i.e. the last definition was taken
> 48c48
> < the cobounds of the existing declaration and expr to not
> ---
> > the cobounds of the existing declaration and expr do not
> 91c91
> < work on the declared type. All array type other than deferred
> shape or
> ---
> > work on the declared type. All array types other than deferred
> shape or
> 546c546
> < +call st(A) ! FIXME
> ---
> > +call st(A)
>
> As far as I am concerned, it is OK for mainline.
>
> Thanks for the patch
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 14:05, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > just pinging on this patch. The attached patch is rebased to an
> > unmodified master as of this afternoon (CEST 3 p.m.).
> >
> > Anyone in for a review?
> >
> > Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / Fedora 39. Ok for mainline?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andre
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:17:44 +0200
> > Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > the attached patch fixes explicit cobounds of procedure
> > > parameters not respected. The central issue is, that class
> > > (array) types store their attributes and `as` in the first
> > > component of the derived type. This made comparison of existing
> > > types harder and gfortran confused generated
> > trees for
> > > different cobounds. The attached patch fixes this.
> > >
> > > Note, the patch is based
> > > on https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-July/060645.html .
> > Without it the
> > > test poly_run_2 fails.
> > >
> > > Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/Fedora 39. Ok for mainline?
> > >
> > > This patch also fixes PR fortran/80774.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Andre
> > > --
> > > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
> >
--
Andre Vehreschild * Kreuzherrenstr. 8 * 52062 Aachen
Tel.: +49 178 3837536 * ve...@gmx.de
