PING: [Patch, Fortran] Small fix for type-bound operators and NOPASS

[Daniel Kraft]

Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 08/17/2009 05:52 AM, Daniel Kraft wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> ping on this small one. What do you think? Should I continue working on
>> OPERATOR and just include it or can I commit this patch as fix to my
>> already committed OPERATOR support?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Daniel
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [Patch, Fortran] Small fix for type-bound operators and NOPASS
>> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:10:01 +0200
>> From: Daniel Kraft <d@domob.eu>
>> To: Fortran List <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
>> CC: gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I just started to work on calling type-bound operators, and discovered a
>> small bug with the last patch. For type-bound operator procedures,
>> there must be a passed-object dummy argument (makes sense) -- but that
>> was not checked, and so it was ok to define some procedure as type-bound
>> operator that has nothing to do with the type at all.
>>
>> The attached patch fixes that. I'm not sure if we should do a seperate
>> check-in or just combine it with the large follow-up for calls; I think
>> it is nothing we need to fix for now, but on the other hand it doesn't
>> really belong to the calling-patch. So what do you think?
>>
>> If I should commit this right away, I'll add a ChangeLog and run a
>> regression-test. Would it then be ok for trunk?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Daniel
>>
> Better to do smaller pieces.  OK after regression test.

No regressions and committed as rev. 150856.  Thanks for the review!

I'll be off from Wednesday to Sunday, but after that (or maybe tomorrow) 
I will now really work on the calls -- I hope to get this done soon!

Yours,
Daniel

-- 
Done:  Arc-Bar-Cav-Ran-Rog-Sam-Tou-Val-Wiz
To go: Hea-Kni-Mon-Pri