Am 17.11.2012 10:09, schrieb Thomas Koenig:
I wrote:
Attached is the new version of the patch, regression-tested.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00836.html
Thanks for the review!
OK for trunk?
Ping?
Ping**2?
Thomas
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Ping**2?
This is OK.
Ciao!
Steven
I wrote:
Attached is the new version of the patch, regression-tested.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-11/msg00836.html
Thanks for the review!
OK for trunk?
Ping?
Hi Steven,
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
I wrote:
after the dicsussion on c.l.f, it become clear that passing a DO loop
variable to an INTENT(OUT) or INTENT(INOUT) dummy argument is an error.
The attached patch throws an error for both cases.
But should we really
I wrote:
after the dicsussion on c.l.f, it become clear that passing a DO loop
variable to an INTENT(OUT) or INTENT(INOUT) dummy argument is an error.
The attached patch throws an error for both cases.
I chose to issue the errors as a front-end pass because we cannot check
for formal arguments
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
I wrote:
after the dicsussion on c.l.f, it become clear that passing a DO loop
variable to an INTENT(OUT) or INTENT(INOUT) dummy argument is an error.
The attached patch throws an error for both cases.
But should we really isse an error
