This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR57217 - re-add type checks for TBP overriding
- From: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: gcc patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 13:52:05 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR57217 - re-add type checks for TBP overriding
- References: <518CCCED dot 5080104 at net-b dot de> <CAKwh3qi6Wp0jmZp0f3Y7irEo1_ztAAyfadxcExT6+aPAiWPmnw at mail dot gmail dot com> <518D215A dot 3000702 at net-b dot de> <CAKwh3qgbTncfYYjR8uChAWt3X9ommFC=yFZ_ge1ZuZKFJ-Xfzg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKwh3qjtAmnQekfi4MB+sL33WZxpi=jKGAaw8V5K43gXP_bCvA at mail dot gmail dot com> <518FC0BA dot 1080600 at net-b dot de> <CAKwh3qgJuEMcE9+HbEo_Ty6XQG=Vb1F1DVtzFd3HgzdBeo2YrQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51A34045 dot 3090803 at net-b dot de>
>> Anyway, anything in this direction is probably a non-regression and
>> should rather be handled as a follow-up. Is the current patch
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-05/msg00045.html) ok for
>> trunk/4.8/4.7?
>
> OK.
Thanks. Committed to trunk as r199375. Will do 4.8 and 4.7 soon.
> Still, I would like if the attached test cases would be rejected. (The
> first one only affects GCC 4.9, the others also GCC4.8).
I'm leaving that for the follow-up (more of which was discussed upthread).
I guess one can argue whether the first one should actually be
rejected (the other two: certainly).
> PS: If you have time, could you please review
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-05/msg00081.html (dealloc intent(in) poly
> array)?
Time is a rare commodity, but I'll see what I can do ... ;)
Cheers,
Janus