Hi Tobias,
On 10/17/23 19:36, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi Harald,
On 17.10.23 19:02, Harald Anlauf wrote:
your latest patch - which you already pushed - removes the
intrinsic declaration of signal.
Only to 'signal' or also to 'sleep'? I have now added both in the attach
patch.
you are right:
Hi Harald,
On 17.10.23 19:02, Harald Anlauf wrote:
your latest patch - which you already pushed - removes the
intrinsic declaration of signal.
Only to 'signal' or also to 'sleep'? I have now added both in the attach
patch.
(Not yet committed.)
Tobias
-
Siemens Electronic
Tobias,
your latest patch - which you already pushed - removes the
intrinsic declaration of signal.
This can lead to a user's confusion and undesired results when
the code is compiled e.g. with -std=f2018, because
call signal (10, 1) ! 10 = SIGUSR1 and 1 = SIG_IGN (on some systems)
could
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 07:11:46PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Yesterday, someone was confused because the signal handler did not work.
>
> It turned out that the created Fortran procedure used as handler used
> pass by reference - and 'signal' passed the it by value.
Many thanks! Indeed,
Hi Harald,
On 16.10.23 20:31, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Tobias,
Am 16.10.23 um 19:11 schrieb Tobias Burnus:
OK for mainline?
I think the patch qualifies as obvious.
While at it, you might consider removing the comment a few lines below
the place you are changing,
@c TODO: What should the
