Hi Tobias,
Have you checked that:
subroutine sub(a)
class(*),pointer :: a
a = null()
end subroutine
does not give an error? I think that it is why the check was introduced.
Cheers
Paul
On 13 October 2013 09:51, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
*PING*:
Then, the patch is OK for trunk :-)
Thanks for putting this right - it's obviously my cock-up!
Cheers
Paul
On 15 October 2013 22:20, Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de wrote:
Hi Paul,
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
Have you checked that:
subroutine sub(a)
class(*),pointer :: a
a =
Le 07/10/2013 23:31, Tobias Burnus a écrit :
The patch is rather obvious. The question is just why was the check
there at the first place.
Build and regtested on x86-64-gnu-linux.
OK for the trunk?
OK. Thanks.
Mikael
*PING*: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-10/msg00018.html
Additionally, I'd like to early ping for the do concurrent patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-10/msg00022.html , even if the ME
review is still pending.
Tobias Burnus wrote:
The patch is rather obvious. The question is just
The patch is rather obvious. The question is just why was the check
there at the first place.
Build and regtested on x86-64-gnu-linux.
OK for the trunk?
Tobias
2013-10-07 Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
PR fortran/58658
* expr.c (gfc_check_vardef_context): Fix pointer diagnostic
for
