Hi FX,
> While this is fresh in your memory, could I suggest you have a look at this
> FINDLOC issue, which seems possibly related:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-September/055016.html
> and further messages from Thomas Koenig?
I briefly checked this, but the issue with FINDLOC see
Hello Harald,
Slightly rewritten version of the patch, with the removal of the KIND
argument from the argument list factored out:
OK for master. I think it is also OK for backport as far as you want
to.
Best regards
Thomas
Hi FX,
While this is fresh in your memory, could I suggest you have a look at this
FINDLOC issue, which seems possibly related:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-September/055016.html
and further messages from Thomas Koenig?
I am actually working on this again, having returned from h
Hi Harald,
While this is fresh in your memory, could I suggest you have a look at this
FINDLOC issue, which seems possibly related:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-September/055016.html
and further messages from Thomas Koenig?
Thanks,
FX
Slightly rewritten version of the patch, with the removal of the KIND
argument from the argument list factored out:
> The generation of the library call for the MINLOC/MAXLOC intrinsic
> mishandled the optional KIND argument and resulted in a bad
> argument list passed to the library function. Th
The generation of the library call for the MINLOC/MAXLOC intrinsic
mishandled the optional KIND argument and resulted in a bad
argument list passed to the library function. The fix is obvious.
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
OK for master? As it technically wrong code, OK for backports?
Than
