> Snip
> Both patches have been regression tested on trunk on x86_64-linux.
>
> OK for trunk [first patch]?
> OK for 4.9 and 5 (after the 5.1 release) [second patch]?
>
> Mikael
>
> PS: Dominiq reported that the variant of this patch posted on the PR was
> also fixing PR49324. I couldn't confirm as what seems to be the
> remaining testcase there (comment #6) doesn't fail with trunk here.
I have tested both patches on my working tree and on a clean one, but only on
top of the [better patch] for pr61831, without the hunk
@@ -4990,7 +5010,7 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol *
tmp = gfc_deallocate_alloc_comp (e->ts.u.derived, tmp, parm_rank);
- gfc_add_expr_to_block (&se->post, tmp);
+ gfc_prepend_expr_to_block (&se->post, tmp);
}
/* Add argument checking of passing an unallocated/NULL actual to
as said in pr61831 comment 45 (the above hunk causes a regression for
gfortran.dg/alloc_comp_assign_10.f90).
AFAICT this is the [better patch] which fixes PR49324.
Now Andre Vehreschild has submitted a patch for pr59678 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-04/msg00061.html. Andre's patch works well
with the [second patch]+[better patch], but leads to a regression for
gfortran.dg/class_19.f03 (pr65792 comment 3) with the [first patch]+[better
patch]. So if the [first patch] is chosen, it will require some change(s) in
Andre’s patch.
Thanks for working on these issues,
Dominique
