[patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-01-28 Thread Andrew Benson
I opened PR93486 for this problem: The following causes an ICE with revision ad690d79cfbb905c5546c9333c5fd089d906505b: module ivs interface l module procedure l_ end interface l contains function l_() end function l_ end module ivs module aModeratleyLongModuleName use ivs inter

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-02-10 Thread Andrew Benson
*ping* On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:45:59 PM PST Andrew Benson wrote: > I opened PR93486 for this problem: > > The following causes an ICE with revision > ad690d79cfbb905c5546c9333c5fd089d906505b: > > module ivs > interface l > module procedure l_ > end interface l > contains > func

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-02-18 Thread Andrew Benson
*ping* On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:45:59 PM PST Andrew Benson wrote: > I opened PR93486 for this problem: > > The following causes an ICE with revision > ad690d79cfbb905c5546c9333c5fd089d906505b: > > module ivs > interface l > module procedure l_ > end interface l > contains > func

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-02-24 Thread Andrew Benson
*ping* On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:45:59 PM PST Andrew Benson wrote: > I opened PR93486 for this problem: > > The following causes an ICE with revision > ad690d79cfbb905c5546c9333c5fd089d906505b: > > module ivs > interface l > module procedure l_ > end interface l > contains > func

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-03-01 Thread Andrew Benson
*ping* On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 4:45:59 PM PST Andrew Benson wrote: > I opened PR93486 for this problem: > > The following causes an ICE with revision > ad690d79cfbb905c5546c9333c5fd089d906505b: > > module ivs > interface l > module procedure l_ > end interface l > contains > func

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-03-01 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 11:33:10AM -0800, Andrew Benson wrote: > *ping* > Andrew, The patch looks fine to me. PS: in general, after multiple pings, just commit the patch. -- Steve

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-03-01 Thread Andrew Benson
Thanks, Steve. I'll get this committed tomorrow morning. -Andrew On Sunday, March 1, 2020 2:42:13 PM PST Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 11:33:10AM -0800, Andrew Benson wrote: > > *ping* > > Andrew, > > The patch looks fine to me. PS: in general, after multiple > pings, just commi

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-03-01 Thread Thomas Koenig
Am 01.03.20 um 23:42 schrieb Steve Kargl: PS: in general, after multiple pings, just commit the patch. ... well, maybe after a "If there is no reply within a couple of days, I will commit this" :-) Regards Thomas

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-03-01 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 11:43:23PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Am 01.03.20 um 23:42 schrieb Steve Kargl: > > PS: in general, after multiple > > pings, just commit the patch. > > ... well, maybe after a "If there is no reply within a > couple of days, I will commit this" :-) > Andrew submitted

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-03-01 Thread Paul Richard Thomas
Andrew, I agree with Steve. That said, I took a look at your patch and it's just fine. OK to commit. Cheers Paul On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 02:10, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 11:43:23PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Am 01.03.20 um 23:42 schrieb Steve Kargl: > > > PS: in general

Re: [patch, fortran] PR93486 - ICE on valid with nested submodules and long submodule names

2020-03-02 Thread Andrew Benson
Hi Paul, Thanks for the review. This is now committed as: r10-6976-gf3c276aec26d9e406cc4bbf0e18b1105df63f0ee I'll keep this in mind for future patches - this one seemed simple enough that I'd be confident to commit it without review after waiting for a few days. I'm hoping to find time to fini