Committed to 7-branch as revision 254429.
Paul
On 5 November 2017 at 12:44, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
> Hi Andre and Thomas,
>
> Thanks for looking at this.
>
> I left the condition as it is because it is the same practice as all
> sorts of other parts of
Hi Andre and Thomas,
Thanks for looking at this.
I left the condition as it is because it is the same practice as all
sorts of other parts of gfortran. That said, Thomas's suggestion is I
think the right one.
Committed revision as revision 254427. 7-branch will come later.
Regards
Paul
On 4
Hi Andre,
Shouldn't that better be
if ((gfc_option.allow_std & GFC_STD_F2003) > 0
I think that
if ((gfc_option.allow_std & GFC_STD_F2003)
would be better - the allow_std field is signed, and
things could get hariy if we ever have close to 32
standards we would like to support.
Hm,
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 20:11:29 +
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> *** resolve_fl_derived (gfc_symbol *sym)
> *** 14075,14080
> --- 14078,14097
> if (!resolve_typebound_procedures (sym))
> return false;
>
> + /* Generate
Dear All,
Please find attached the revised version of the patch following my
late realizations in yesterday's submission.
Cheers
Paul
On 1 November 2017 at 18:22, Paul Richard Thomas
wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> This patch is adequately described by the comment in
Dear All,
This patch is adequately described by the comment in the second chunk
applied to resolve.c.
Note, however, that the 'unconditionally' is promptly undermined by
the subsequent conditions. I will change the adjective appropriately.
In writing this, I have just realised that