Committed as revision 257827.

> 1. The resolve.c part of the patch seems to have incorrect indentation?

I can't see what you are referring to. I'll correct it if needs be....

> 2. Instead of gfc_index_zero_node would it be better to use
> build_zero_cst (gfc_charlen_type_node)? Or is the same code used also
> for something related to arrays? If so, probably safer to leave as is,
> as the character length code should nowadays use fold_convert
> relatively judiciously where needed.

gfc_index_zero_node is not actually used, other than as a flag in
effect. Look at trans-decl.c:1778. No, I wasn't responsible for this
bit of code!
> 3. For associate_36.f90, I believe that testcase was due to Steve
> Kargl and not me.

Oh bother. I forgot about this remark. I'll correct the attribution tomorrow.

> 4. I believe you can credit yourself with fixing PR 83975 as well in
> the Changelog.

Done. However, as the testcase showed, it was all fixed with the other pRS :-)

> With these minor quibbles out of the way, Ok for trunk.
 >>>> Janne Blomqvist

Many thanks


Reply via email to