Re: [fortran, patches] *ping* PR32359,

[FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>]

Hi Tobias,

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  
gfortran bugs!

> June 18 (14 days old):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg01222.html
> PR32359 OpenMP threadprivate: SAVE is implied by explicit  
> initialization
> 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):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg01657.html
> PR20888 using NULL() pointer as operand
> Accepts-invalid patch
>
> June 26 (6 days old):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg01932.html
> PR 25062 Common block name shall conflict with parameters and  
> intrinsic
> procedures
> Accepts-invalid patch
>
> June 30 (2 days old):
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg02128.html
> Sequence association and actual/formal argument element sequence  
> compile
> time checks
> Fortran 2003 features (mostly for Bind C) and diagnostic patch.

These three are OK.

Thanks,
FX