Hi Paul,
yes, please go ahead with the merge. To my astonishment, I had no conflicts
with your patch. Mine is addressing copy-in/(out) aka packing/unpacking of
derived-type to class-type arguments.
Thanks for the patch.
- Andre
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 09:21:26 +0100
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
Hi Andre,
Thank you for the review.
> ...snip...
>
> I am confused here, because you are assigning to rhs. When that is
> correct, why
> is there no else assigning zero to the rhs->_len when arg1 is not
> unlimited?
'rhs_class_expr' is highly confusing and came from the original use of this
Hi Paul,
In
@@ -1335,19 +1340,49 @@ get_class_info_from_ss (stmtblock_t * pre, gfc_ss *ss,
tree *eltype) rhs_function = true;
}
}
+ else if (cntnr != NULL_TREE)
+{
+ tmp = gfc_class_vptr_get (rhs_class_expr);
+ gfc_add_modify (pre, tmp, fold_convert (TREE_TYPE (tmp),
+
Hi All,
This is one of those PRs where one thing led to another I think that
the patch is pretty complete and, while apparently quite heavy, is more or
less self explanatory through comments and the ChangeLog.
The first testcase concentrates on reshape in various guises, while the
second
