testing secnds.f

[Brooks Moses]

Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> Please submit a formal patch for this, so I can approve it.
> 
> I'ld like to do some further testing around midnight on Linux boxes.
> Meanwhile could you have a look at 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg00064.html
> and tell me if I picked the right format.

Yup, that looks okay -- as far as I'm concerned, anything that has a 
changelog and a set of diffs that will run correctly through "patch" is 
fine.  There's no need for the detailed regtest results -- just 
describing the results (i.e., your mention at the end about "the 
difference being" and listing the two new failures and why they're 
irrelevant) is quite sufficient.

The only recommendations I'd make is that for Fortran patches, you 
should crosspost the patch to this list as well as the gcc-patches list 
(I'm not sure if you did that with that one or not), and that it's often 
a bit easier if you attach the diffs as an attached file rather than in 
the body of the message.  That matters more if they're longer, though.

Also, if you don't have write access to the SVN repository, it's useful 
to mention that so that the reviewer will know they need to commit the 
patch for you.

(If you're working with a source tree that's been checked out with 
subversion, it's often a bit easier to use "svn diff <list of files>" to 
get the diff file, but what you've got works as well.)

Speaking of the post you linked to -- it looks like nothing ever 
happened with it?  After a couple of weeks, it would have been very 
appropriate to write a "PING" message reminding people that you hadn't 
gotten a reply.  :)  It looks obvious to me, so I'll go ahead and apply 
it now.

- Brooks