https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to kargl from comment #1) > Stephan, > > I tried the simply patch suggested in your analysis and > it does fix the problem. I need to extend the patch to > fix the m4 files that utilize the macro as the 'b' > parameter is no longer needed. > > I've also Paul to the CC list. He finished and sheparded > the array descriptor reform into the tree. Paul, does > Stephan's analysis look correct? Yes, the logic is impeccable and the patch still better :-) Thanks for the report and the fix, Stephan. Steve, can you do the honors with this please? I am still pressed by daytime work and will be for another two-three weeks. Paul --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> --- On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 07:49:02AM +0000, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975 > > --- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #1) > > Stephan, > > > > I tried the simply patch suggested in your analysis and > > it does fix the problem. I need to extend the patch to > > fix the m4 files that utilize the macro as the 'b' > > parameter is no longer needed. > > > > I've also Paul to the CC list. He finished and sheparded > > the array descriptor reform into the tree. Paul, does > > Stephan's analysis look correct? > > Yes, the logic is impeccable and the patch still better :-) > > Thanks for the report and the fix, Stephan. > > Steve, can you do the honors with this please? I am still pressed by daytime > work and will be for another two-three weeks. > Yes, I'll do the honors in the next day or two.
