This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [fortran, patches] *ping* PR32359,
- From: FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "'fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org'" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:11:08 +0200
- Subject: Re: [fortran, patches] *ping* PR32359,
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I'm trying to clear the backlog of unreviewed patch (to which I
contributed by my recent silence), so feel free to send more "grouped
pings" like that when you need. I'm sorry to admit that otherwise, I
get lost among mail traffic :( I'm very happy to see that accepts-
invalid patches are also dealt with, reducing the total number of
June 18 (14 days old):
PR32359 OpenMP threadprivate: SAVE is implied by explicit
Rejects-valid patch by Daniel Franke and me.
This one is OK if noone else objects during the nex 48h. I feel that
this ultimatum is necessary, since you're introducing new possible
values for attr->save, I want to give people an opportunity to say if
they think of a way to avoid this.
June 22 (10 days old):
PR20888 using NULL() pointer as operand
June 26 (6 days old):
PR 25062 Common block name shall conflict with parameters and
June 30 (2 days old):
Sequence association and actual/formal argument element sequence
Fortran 2003 features (mostly for Bind C) and diagnostic patch.
These three are OK.