[Patches, fortran] ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping, ping and ping

[Paul Thomas]

Steven,

Many thanks for substantially clearing the backlog.  Just a couple of 
remarks:

>>PR24092 - recursive derived types - part 2  -------- Steve, did you get
>>back to this?
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-10/msg00180.html
>>    
>>
>
>AFAICT Steve already OK'ed this.
>  
>
No, he did part 1 and started on part 2.  At that point I indicated that 
my plate was full and that haste was not needed.

>  
>
>>PR20866 - recursive statement functions. ------------ This one is fun!
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-10/msg00159.html
>>    
>>
>
>Just a few suggestions for this one: First of all, recursive_stmt_fcn
>needs a better comment before it, explaining what each argument is.
>Second, maybe the return type should just be a bool so that you don't
>need that ugly REC_ST_FN ;-)
>  
>
OK on suggestion 1 and I'll have a look-see on suggestion 2.

>>PR20849 and PR20853 - incorrectly used initializers for assumed size
>>arrays and external objects  ****
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2005-10/msg00155.html
>>    
>>
>
>OK.
>FWIW fixing Standard issues with this kind of small patch is obvious
>if you ask me.  It would be nice, though, to add references to the
>sections of the Standard explaining why something like this is wrong.
>(Yes, I know, we should have done that from the start when we started
>developing g95/gfortran, but at least let's add references for the 
>issues that get fixed now, because apparently they're not that obvious,
>or we would have done this right the first time ;-)
>  
>
Oh bother - I have done a whole bunch like that without referring to the 
standard.  I think that you are right in fact; I slight complication is 
that I  only possess the final draft; did the paragraph numbers change any?

>This is also OK, but again a little more comment explaining why we
>need this would be nice (a reference to the PR is also good).
>  
>
OK, will do.

Cheers

Paul