Hi Paul, Your patch did not apply smoothly on my working tree:
patching file gcc/configure Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected! Assume -R? [n] … patching file gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bind_c_array_params_2.f90 Hunk #1 FAILED at 5. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bind_c_array_params_2.f90.rej … patching file libgfortran/Makefile.am Hunk #3 FAILED at 780. Hunk #4 FAILED at 1019. 2 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file libgfortran/Makefile.am.rej patching file libgfortran/Makefile.in Hunk #3 FAILED at 765. Hunk #4 FAILED at 1337. Hunk #5 FAILED at 1536. 3 out of 7 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file libgfortran/Makefile.in.rej … I ignored the failed hunks in libgfortran/Makefile.am and the corresponding ones in libgfortran/Makefile.in and applied manually the hunk #3. The I did not have any problem to do the update. Then the test gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_1.c failed for the 32 bit mode: /opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_1.f90:142:8: 142 | if (c_allocate (x, lower, upper) .ne. 0) stop 10 | 1 Error: Type mismatch in argument 'lower' at (1); passed INTEGER(4) to INTEGER(8) Cheers, Dominique