This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: [Patch, fortran] PR20779 and PR20891 - allocation of STAT or specification variables in same call

From: Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>
To: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
Cc: patch <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "'fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:29:26 +0200
Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR20779 and PR20891 - allocation of STAT or specification variables in same call
References: <450D87A2.1040003@wanadoo.fr> <450ED555.7010000@wanadoo.fr> <20061003193121.GA31372@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>

Steve,


I think the patch is okay after you eliminate this little
chunk:

-  if (ref2->u.ar.type == AR_ELEMENT)
-    return SUCCESS;
+/*  if (ref2->u.ar.type == AR_ELEMENT)
+    return SUCCESS;*/

Wierd! That goes back to the earliest version of the patch; of nearly two months ago. I do not know why I was doing that, still less why it does not affect regtesting at all. I think that it is one to close with a testcase. I'll put my thinking cap on.

Thanks

Paul

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Patch, fortran] PR20779 and PR20891 - allocation of STAT or specification variables in same call
  - From: Paul Thomas

References:
- Re: [Patch, fortran] PR20779 and PR20891 - allocation of STAT or specification variables in same call
  - From: Steve Kargl

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