This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: OOP on fortran-dev branch
- From: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>, gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:23:32 +0200
- Subject: Re: OOP on fortran-dev branch
- References: <854832d40909171335m7e6446acnfae2a6425e54476b@mail.gmail.com> <4AB32221.6050309@net-b.de> <854832d40909181620u2038c2c3pecf5ff82bd7413b8@mail.gmail.com> <339c37f20909182347k7cb7f0dueb0bb9e3f125a4ab@mail.gmail.com> <854832d40909200434o7c7da239o8e65a9dfbbd14a23@mail.gmail.com>
> The question is how to go on: Should I just commit this to the branch
> now, or rather wait until trunk is a reasonable state again?
Committed to fortran-dev branch as r151903 (approved by Paul on IRC).
Luckily, the trunk seems to be back in a healthy state again (r151901
shows no failures with check-gfortran for me on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu). And after Tobias' merge, so is the branch.
After my commit, the branch shows failures on the following files:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/module_widestring_1.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_pass_1.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_pass_2.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_comp_pass_3.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_call_10.f03 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_call_2.f03 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_call_3.f03 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_generic_4.f03 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_3.f03 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_4.f03 -O (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/typebound_proc_5.f03 -O (test for errors, line 58)
Of these, only the first one really worries me, since the others are
test cases which contain the CLASS keyword (which means these are not
regressions, but just unimplemented CLASS stuff, which I will try to
fix soon).
About module_widestring_1: Right now I have really no idea where this
comes from (I would have guessed for the changes in module.c, but
these look completely harmless). If anyone has a suspicion, please let
me know. Will investigate ...
Cheers,
Janus