```Yes, this is OK, thanks```
On Mon, Oct 26, 2026, 9:38 AM Jerry Delisle <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, this is OK. Thanks for the work. > > Jerry > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2026, 8:03 AM Paul Richard Thomas < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> The Jerry/Claude review revealed: >> Verdict: Blocker: new ICEs for MOLD= an assumed-LEN dummy, a >> deferred-LEN allocatable, or a component. Blocker: a module procedure >> result in a submodule now ICEs. There is no test for bug23. >> >> These issues are all fixed in the attached patch, which also passes >> regression testing. >> >> OK for mainline? >> >> Regards >> >> Paul >> >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 at 13:36, Paul Richard Thomas >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > bug16-mold-loses-len.f90 failed to give the correct result because >> > ALLOCATE with MOLD= did not propagate the LEN parameter. >> > >> > The ChangeLog provides quite enough explanation of what the patch does. >> > >> > Passes regtesting on FC44/x86_64. OK for mainline. >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > Paul >> >
