Hi Paul,
Am 29.12.21 um 12:45 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Hi Harald,
That is the sort of thing that I had in mind. Is it worth adding the check
for CLASS_DATA? I cannot remember if that is made redundant by the test of
the class_ok attribute.
the macro CLASS_DATA appears to have
Hi Harald,
That is the sort of thing that I had in mind. Is it worth adding the check
for CLASS_DATA? I cannot remember if that is made redundant by the test of
the class_ok attribute.
Cheers
Paul
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021 at 21:08, Harald Anlauf wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Am 28.12.21 um 12:56 schrieb
Hi Paul,
Am 28.12.21 um 12:56 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas via Fortran:
Hi Harald,
This looks good to me. OK for mainline and, dare I suggest, 11-branch?
From a quick run through resolve.c, there are many places where the extra
checks that you introduced in the patch have been implemented.
Hi Harald,
This looks good to me. OK for mainline and, dare I suggest, 11-branch?
>From a quick run through resolve.c, there are many places where the extra
checks that you introduced in the patch have been implemented. This makes
me wonder whether a function or macro might not make the relevant
Dear all,
there are a couple of NULL pointer dereferences leading to improper
error recovery when trying to handle Gerhard's testcases involving
SELECT TYPE and invalid uses of CLASS variables.
The fixes look pretty obvious to me, but I'm submitting here to
check if there is more that should be
