This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [Patch, libfortran] Fix PR 19014 and 19106
- From: Thomas Koenig <Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de>
- To: Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>
- Cc: Thomas Koenig <Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 23:50:19 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, libfortran] Fix PR 19014 and 19106
- References: <20050408220824.GA28942@meiner.onlinehome.de> <42583FAA.10003@physik.uni-muenchen.de>
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > this fixes PR 19106 and PR 19014. The solution adopted should
> > work. This time, I've also added checks in the test cases.
> >
> > Regression-test on 4.0 and mainline tomorrow (I have to go to
> > bed sometimes :-)
> >
> > OK if this passes?
>
> With two minor fixes that I point out below, this is ok for the mainline and
> for the branch once it's reopened.
Now regression-tested and committed to mainline with the changes
you outlined. Thanks a lot!
> (I don't think we should push for the
> last-minute inclusion of Fortran patches into 4.0, a bad checkin could result
> in a broken gcc release which would be much worse than gfortran being slightly
> less usable before 4.0.1)
I'd feel less bad about some patches not being in 4.0 than
about others. End-of-record handling in one shape or another has
attracted a large number of PRs, so I would really like to see
that particlar fix in 4.0.
Of course, that feeling is influenced by the timing of my
copyright papers - getting a response just in time and then not
being able to actually get any outstanding patches into 4.0 would
be a bit of a disappointment.
OTOH, 4.0.1 / 4.1.0 should be the real target for gfortran.
On the third hand, how should we mark PRs fixed in 4.1, but not
in 4.0?
Thomas