This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 56284: ICE with alternate return in type-bound procedure
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 08:50:25 -0700
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 56284: ICE with alternate return in type-bound procedure
- References: <CAKwh3qj+OQfiD53bp5O_Doa4O94_ZziSvu2nOgOnngUYk=HoVg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5159FAC2 dot 7000602 at net-b dot de> <CAKwh3qjMoDxiQE98-OnCtCna7dQ8BhU+i5KhQ0qsKF_4wudEBA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKwh3qgU==eKHuuQz=J9XkpHH3LG5nM=ssujEBzKPAVcEBoH_w at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKwh3qhWc5Q3Z18Qu0ADOfDN9A3zFmJAGwGRF5BB+HXBmo8D4w at mail dot gmail dot com> <515D34DB dot 6060009 at net-b dot de>
On Apr 4, 2013, at 1:07 AM, Tobias Burnus <email@example.com> wrote:
> As my editor shows, that file uses DOS line endings (\r\n) in some lines and UNIX ones (\n) in others. In principle, I am for keeping such files to test the parser.
If one keeps them, please put them into a file that tests for that feature exclusively, as we often find turds, oops, I mean bits in the tree were someone did the wrong thing and accidentally put in CRLRs. testcrlf would be a good file name for such a test. :-) Further, the revision control system has to be told these files are binaries I suspect, in order to not screw up merging and checkout and so on. I mainly see people accidentally leaving in the CRs, and the svn and git screwing them up, then I audit and submit patches to `fix' the entire tree at once...