https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59104
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #22) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #21) > > (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #20) > > > OK the regression is fixed - thanks for the green light, Harald. > > > > > > It's a pity that I have missed the 4.2 release :-( > > > > > > Paul > > > > It is more important that 14.2 gets regression-free out of the door. > > Indeed! I reverted the patch but it doesn't seem to have been recorded here > (Is that normal?). I just checked that my tree is synched with the release > branch and that dependent_decls_2.f90 fails while dependent_decls_3.f90 > compiles and runs successfully. I don't know why it is not recorded here. The auto-generated ChangeLog nevertheless got it. > My original plan was to update with the regression fix but, being ultra > careful, recompiled and regtested, which caused me to time out on the > release. No, that's fine. It's better to wait until after the 14.2 release. Did you fully understand why the ordering of the treatment of the dummy arguments changed the way we observed? I got lost when I compared the tree dumps before and after the 1st committed patch. Was it because one dummy was used in the declaration of another one? I'll try to gather some more ideas to stress-test the robustness of the handling of dummy declarations. > Paul Cheers, Harald
