https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Tue May 19 17:37:42 2015
New Revision: 223401
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223401&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-19 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66043
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: kargl
Date: Mon May 18 21:52:03 2015
New Revision: 223320
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=223320&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-05-18 Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66043
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 05:39:44PM +, sgk at troutmask dot
apl.washington.edu wrote:
>
> The above patch is good enough to catch the direct use
> of NULL() in storage_size. The following should also
> be
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl ---
On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 03:52:24PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Index: check.c
> ===
> --- check.c (revision 222869)
> +++ chec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66043
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
