This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch, libfortran] Fix for PR 20163, first bug
- From: Thomas Koenig <Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Thomas Koenig <Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 21:51:08 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch, libfortran] Fix for PR 20163, first bug
- References: <20050226204345.GA4685@meiner.onlinehome.de> <20050409180606.GB64554@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
here's a straightforward bug fix for gfortran, which I'd like
to include in 4.0.0. It has already been applied to mainline.
Is this also OK for 4.0?
More generally, how do you feel about gfortran 4.0 bug fixes at
this stage? There are a few important pieces of gfortran that
are broken right now, but for which patches are in the review process
(namelists, alternate returns for functions, end-of-record handling)
that IMO affect the usability of gfortran in a major way.
# PR libfortran/20163
# * runtime/string.c (compare0): Use fstrlen() to
# strip trailing blanks from option string.
# * open-options-blanks.f: New testcase