Committed to 9-branch as revision 271089.
Paul
On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 09:00, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
>
> Committed to trunk as revision 271057.
>
> Will do likewise with 9-branch asap.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
> On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 19:40, Paul Richard Thomas
> wrote:
> >
> > Unless there are
Committed to trunk as revision 271057.
Will do likewise with 9-branch asap.
Cheers
Paul
On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 19:40, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
>
> Unless there are any objections to this patch, I plan to commit to
> trunk and 9-branch tomorrow night, with the change to the testcase
> pointed
Unless there are any objections to this patch, I plan to commit to
trunk and 9-branch tomorrow night, with the change to the testcase
pointed out by Dominique.
I sincerely hope that will be the end of CFI PRs for a little while,
at least. I have a load of pending patches and want to get on with
Hi Dominique,
Many thanks - I had already found this after replenishing my tree and
regtesting. I don't quite know how it escaped but the fix is obvious.
Amicalement
Paul
On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 09:39, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> With your patch, I see
>
> FAIL:
Hi Paul,
With your patch, I see
FAIL: gfortran.dg/iso_c_binding_char_1.f90 -O (test for errors, line 8)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/iso_c_binding_char_1.f90 -O (test for errors, line 9)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/iso_c_binding_char_1.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
This is due to a bad location of the
It helps to attach the patch!
On Mon, 6 May 2019 at 19:57, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, this patch was still in the making at the release of
> 9.1. It is more or less self explanatory with the ChangeLogs.
>
> It should be noted that gfc_conv_expr_present could not be used in the
Unfortunately, this patch was still in the making at the release of
9.1. It is more or less self explanatory with the ChangeLogs.
It should be noted that gfc_conv_expr_present could not be used in the
fix for PR90093 because the passed descriptor is a CFI type. Instead,
the test is for a null
