Sandbox branch for gfortran 4.5 patches

[Steve Kargl]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:30:43AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> 
> regarding the sandbox branch: I'm not sure how useful it is; after all,
> we want to apply the patches one-by-one when 4.5 opens and not as a huge
> chunk - and splitting them will not be easy.

An svn commit is atomic.  We should easily be able to generate an
ordered sequence of patches.

> Additionally, one needs to merge the trunk into the branch regularly,
> which also not always works.

Yes, it will if all gfortran work is done in the branch.  Frequent
merges of the non-gfortran change would be needed, but there should
be few to no conflicts. 

> Thus, I think it does not make much sense to have a branch for all the
> little patches. However, one could consider a sandbox branch for the I/O
> patches, which allows better (regression)testing and makes sense since
> at least 3 developers are involved.
> 
> > anything ready that used them?).  If it bootstraps and regtests OK,
> > should I commit?  After fixing the last round of bit-rot on this
> > patch, I do not want to have to do it again!
> >   
> Have you posted a new patch? I only saw
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-11/msg00380.html which had some minor
> issues, cf. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-11/msg00410.html  What do
> you mean with "commit"? 4.4 trunk, 4.5 trunk or the sandbox branch? I
> think it is too large for the 4.4 trunk.
> 
> Regarding the new options: -fruntest-check=recursion and
> -fruntest-check=do are implemented by the reviewed patches
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-12/msg00096.html and
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-12/msg00104.html

I think you just proved my point because I don't remember msg00096 or
msg00104.  I doubt anyone has unlimited time to re-invent patches. 
The limited time could be spent on TODO items.

-- 
Steve