This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [fortran patch] Don't use TREE_LISTs for storing arguments to intrinsic functions
- From: "Lee Millward" <lee dot millward at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Bernhard Fischer" <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Brooks Moses" <brooks dot moses at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:51:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: [fortran patch] Don't use TREE_LISTs for storing arguments to intrinsic functions
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=e/eErQGLzvJGiVMl4TVSydbX38umIiZRIr7ftpEJ9l89WfGv4xPz2ddV3YspGw43sit+nyOfZLm4ksW2+4RmAmjMtrlHBJLgdzGnjdIgW+c6EW4AyNNJ/RZ59i98nCJseF3FAfqilG/Y7rRR+7Rrl7HPjLtCGsnA1YmnurYbUUM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=iIvuw5VCz5h8AfWW4IaPY7CylJE5yl3WY0+kAh6PsYcsU6HnYZPLRqgB2koyzcHmfi6JDMuoIKHoDV0JwSdwdvlsOibVQ32sUgEyT052KSr2K1CHTvp+MAErmkvRRPLhQhTosBh3Jx13ksoycTqbwkn0FFW1IItM5pn/zHmjM1A=
- References: <9784d3ab0705071520k1f0c1563ib16810e65852924a@mail.gmail.com> <46402258.5030706@codesourcery.com> <4.3.1.2.20070508112105.03cdc938@cits1.stanford.edu> <4.3.1.2.20070508122850.029d3820@cits1.stanford.edu> <9784d3ab0705081537jcb70109g962f91caf5c6ca97@mail.gmail.com> <20070509114553.GA22159@aon.at>
Hi Bernhard
On 5/9/07, Bernhard Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
A few further nitpicks below..
[rest of post snipped]
Thank you very much for your comments, I'll get those included in the
next version along with the other changes requested by Brooks. Some of
the minor quirks you point out are articfacts of the original code
which I can certainly address with this patch seeing as I'm modifying
that code anyway if that is ok?
Cheers,
Lee