Dear Andre,
I agree with Steve's recommendation that you comment out the line and
open a PR for the problem.
The patch looks fine to me and applied cleanly, apart from trailing
CRs in the testcases.
OK by me too.
Cheers
Paul
PS I felt safe in setting a deadline for the submodule patch
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 09:20:39PM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
Thanks for looking at the code. The error you experience is known
to me. The bug is present in gfortran and only exposed by this patch.
Unfortunately is the pr58586 not addressing this specific error. It
may be in the
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 07:48:13PM +0200, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Dear Andre,
I agree with Steve's recommendation that you comment out the line and
open a PR for the problem.
The patch looks fine to me and applied cleanly, apart from trailing
CRs in the testcases.
OK by me too.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for looking at the code. The error you experience is known to me. The
bug is present in gfortran and only exposed by this patch. Unfortunately is the
pr58586 not addressing this specific error. It may be in the bugtracker under a
different number already. Furthermore did I not
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 11:29:00AM +0200, Andre Vehreschild wrote:
Ping!
(Un)fortnuately you're working on an area of Fortran
that I don't know and in parts of the tree that takes
me a long time to decipher (aka, trans-*.c files).
I applied your patch and see several failures. I'll
note
Ping!
Version increment only to reflect rebasing on current trunk.
Bootstraps and regtests fine on x86_64-linux-gnu/f21.
I am tempted to follow Paul's method of setting a deadline for objections. Else
I will commit the patch next Friday (just kidding). I am more interested in
a review. The
