Hi,
On 25 March 2017 at 19:49, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 03/25/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jerry,
>>
>> This looks fine to me. OK for trunk.
>>
>> Thanks for the patch.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
> Thanks for review Paul.
>
> A gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_26.f03
>
On 03/25/2017 11:00 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Hi Jerry,
This looks fine to me. OK for trunk.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
Thanks for review Paul.
A gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/dtio_26.f03
M gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
M libgfortran/ChangeLog
M
Hi Jerry,
This looks fine to me. OK for trunk.
Thanks for the patch.
Paul
On 25 March 2017 at 13:41, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I managed to figure out the rest of this.
>
> Attached is updated full patch. I consolidated the two previous test cases
> into one which checks all four cond
Hi all,
I managed to figure out the rest of this.
Attached is updated full patch. I consolidated the two previous test cases into
one which checks all four conditions I was concerned with.
Regression tested on x86_64_linux.
Ok for trunk?
Regards,
Jerry
2017-03-25 Jerry DeLisle
The patch works as expected. Note that the line
! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "t_m" } }
in dtio_26.f03 and dtio_27.f03 can/should be removed IIRC.
Cheers,
Dominique
Hi all,
The attached patch is part 1 of a 2 part patch. This part fixes a few problems
with handling of advance= and EOR conditions. This does not resolve the
original case in the PR but gets some issues out of the way so I can continue.
The most notable change is that per standard, child I
