This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ping: [Patch, fortran] Bug 68241 - [meta-bug] Deferred-length character - PRs50221, 68216, 63932, 66408, 67674 and 49954
- From: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- To: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Damian Rouson <damian at sourceryinstitute dot org>, Louis Krupp <louis dot krupp at zoho dot com>, Dominique Dhumieres <dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:39:54 -0800
- Subject: Re: Ping: [Patch, fortran] Bug 68241 - [meta-bug] Deferred-length character - PRs50221, 68216, 63932, 66408, 67674 and 49954
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGkQGiJ0ZptE31WH9bPaJJoO1n5Fg7d7Wj2oozHjcCYcJtqunw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20151114174943 dot GA19017 at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu> <CAGkQGiK4Tq8jLryYgQ+BEFPk60mXUXPVkAuJs75hs8SEXQjD-A at mail dot gmail dot com> <20151114201010 dot GA80065 at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu> <CAGkQGiJzH_ApMw+hAquuWiq+DmoYbJGiocBNkFkAPrNLWXyGFg at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGkQGiK+uSw9OL0ewRYcV8kmWfCmQ6nBa2ccr-A+e5kRMiXFgw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 07:12:47PM +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> I have just applied the patch to 5 branch and have found that, apart
> from two minor tweaks in trans.c, all was well. It bootstrapped
> and regtested fine, apart from deferred_character_2.f90. In this
> latter, deferred length SOURCE and MOLD do not work because the
> requisite patches in gfc_trans_allocate were not backported. In
> addition, I had to add explicit array specifications to the allocate
> statements.
>
> Should I get deferred length SOURCE and MOLD to work or apply the
> attached patch as it stands? Alternatively, I could forget about 4.9
> and 5 branches and close the PRs.
>
> I have added the ChangeLogs below.
>
I'll review this tonight or tomorrow morning.
As to your question, I think that it is time to let 4.9 go.
AFAIK, there is going to be only one more release from the 4
branch. Too many PRs, too few hands to fix them. Hopefully,
major OS's will move to 5.x as the recommended gcc distro.
I think backports to the 5 branch should be done at the
disgression of the committer. If you have cycles to burn,
backporting is up to you. One problem with this viewpoint
is, of course, code divergence between 5-branch and trunk
makes backporting more difficult.
--
steve