--- Comment #23 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-30 22:13 ---
Fixed on trunk.
Thanks for the report!
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #22 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-30 22:11 ---
Subject: Bug 31197
Author: pault
Date: Thu Aug 30 22:10:55 2007
New Revision: 127939
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=127939
Log:
2007-08-31 Paul Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #21 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-04 11:32 ---
> Warsaw, 18.5 C, overcast. Of course, Paul's work on gfortran is more
> important than anything else :-)
>
There is also the question of what I am expected to do over the weekend after
three weeks away from home
--- Comment #20 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
2007-07-04 10:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] TRANSPOSE/RESHAPE and
strings
jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk wrote:
> --- Comment #19 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-04 10:05 ---
> (In rep
--- Comment #19 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-04 10:05 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I'll spend this afternoon on
> it, rather than going on the conference excursion.
depending on location/weather, I'd go for the conference excursion ;-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-04 09:26 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> > since it is a regression wrt 4.1 , a fix could go in at 'anytime' ? If it is
> > very invasive, one should fix 4.2 before 4.2.1 though...
>
> one should *not* fix 4.2 of course
>
All
--- Comment #17 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-04 09:09 ---
> since it is a regression wrt 4.1 , a fix could go in at 'anytime' ? If it is
> very invasive, one should fix 4.2 before 4.2.1 though...
one should *not* fix 4.2 of course
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
--- Comment #16 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-04 09:09 ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> The patch was also judged to be
> untimely
> relative to the 4.3 release schedule so I agreed to hold back.
since it is a regression wrt 4.1 , a fix could go in at 'anytime' ? If it is
very
--- Comment #15 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-04 08:50 ---
> > >
> > is this still correct ?
>
> Adding Paul, so he can see this question and hopefully answer affirmatively.
>
The patch was posted to the list 0615; whilst functional, in that it fixed the
bugs, bootstrapp
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31197
--- Comment #14 from tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-03 18:36 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > I have a fix that I will submit tonight or tomorrow morning. It also fixes
> > PR31258 and PR31897.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> is this still correct ?
Adding Paul, s
--- Comment #13 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-07-03 18:33 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I have a fix that I will submit tonight or tomorrow morning. It also fixes
> PR31258 and PR31897.
>
> Paul
>
is this still correct ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3119
12 matches
Mail list logo
