Hi Thomas, > So, OK with a comment why this appears? Or should I simply > rename GFC_DEP_ERROR to GFC_DEP_NODEPFOUND to make this a bit > clearer?
I recommend the latter. Reporting an error should be done only when an error occurred, but no dependency detected does not feel like an error. Let's reserve GFC_DEP_ERROR for real error cases (that may occur in the future). With the latter the patch is ok for me. In fact, was I thinking about doing something similar to the gfc_dependendy routines. (Note, I have no reviewer priviliges, so this is just a vote). Regards, Andre -- Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de