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
