This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Problem with procedure pointers

From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
To: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Cc: Arjen Markus <arjen dot markus895 at gmail dot com>, Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:39:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Problem with procedure pointers
References: <AANLkTin1UzR57_DvVyo7YbBc-A87HV6p5OK0LHjJvgGT@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=SQQaa9nOqYrsRbcwmBEGXyWX_Fwm4LOOuBo2c@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikBb6EK-32zV2HF4WB27vmz8udxOCJJNWeoQDAg@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikmnH-cXcFqtBqBTWsqoVrwB01EAyakHY8KEx_Q@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimAKBr0w0axcW2vkFmKDwZAMHjhYzwiYsy-bKMa@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Janus,

>> The patch is rather trivial. Is it sensible to apply this to 4.6 still, or should I wait until 4.7?

We have applied many trivial patches in the past that have caused
regressions. :-)

However, I see no way in which adding an extra attribute to module
files can do so.  Therefore, I think that this is entirely bomb-proof
and could be applied.

Prepare the patch fully, do the regtesting and see if any contrary
voices emerge in the next hours.  If nobody objects, I will OK a
formal submission.

Cheers

Paul

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Problem with procedure pointers
  - From: Janus Weil
- Re: Problem with procedure pointers
  - From: Tobias Burnus

References:
- Problem with procedure pointers
  - From: Arjen Markus
- Re: Problem with procedure pointers
  - From: Janus Weil
- Re: Problem with procedure pointers
  - From: Janus Weil
- Re: Problem with procedure pointers
  - From: Janus Weil
- Re: Problem with procedure pointers
  - From: Janus Weil

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]