This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch/gfortran] Fix for PR16939
- From: "Paul Thomas" <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>
- To: Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>
- Cc: "patch" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 06:47:51 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch/gfortran] Fix for PR16939
- References: <006301c554d0$0b84f200$0400000a@Paul> <427FD90D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
... I'm wondering if these interdependent conditions could be arranged
clearly. The one you're adding is mutually exclusive with both of the
whereas the first one and the third one can both be true at the same time.
I thought to do the same. However, I am not sure that it is clearer. More
importantly, I decided to ring-fence the scalar case because I think that
dummy argument arrays of character pointers need the same treatment. They
are broken elsewhere, such that I cannot even get to this point usefully.
How about I make it leaner and meaner once I have a clear view of what to do