Re: [Patch, fortran] PR97122 - Spurious FINAL ... must be in the specification part of a MODULE

2023-05-09 Thread Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 08:35:00PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: > On 5/9/23 20:29, Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > > It's not needed. See above. gfc_state_stack->previous is referenced > > a few lines above the if-stmt. The reference will segfault if the > > pointer is NULL. > > > >

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR97122 - Spurious FINAL ... must be in the specification part of a MODULE

2023-05-09 Thread Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
On 5/9/23 20:29, Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches wrote: On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 08:24:16PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: Hi Paul, On 5/9/23 17:51, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi All, Thanks to Steve Kargl for the fix. It caused finalize_8.f03 to fail because this testcase checked

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR97122 - Spurious FINAL ... must be in the specification part of a MODULE

2023-05-09 Thread Steve Kargl via Gcc-patches
On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 08:24:16PM +0200, Harald Anlauf wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On 5/9/23 17:51, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Thanks to Steve Kargl for the fix. It caused finalize_8.f03 to fail because > > this testcase checked that finalizable derived types could

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR97122 - Spurious FINAL ... must be in the specification part of a MODULE

2023-05-09 Thread Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches
Hi Paul, On 5/9/23 17:51, Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches wrote: Hi All, Thanks to Steve Kargl for the fix. It caused finalize_8.f03 to fail because this testcase checked that finalizable derived types could not be specified in a submodule. I have replaced the original test with a test of

[Patch, fortran] PR97122 - Spurious FINAL ... must be in the specification part of a MODULE

2023-05-09 Thread Paul Richard Thomas via Gcc-patches
Hi All, Thanks to Steve Kargl for the fix. It caused finalize_8.f03 to fail because this testcase checked that finalizable derived types could not be specified in a submodule. I have replaced the original test with a test of the patch. Thanks also to Malcolm Cohen for guidance on this. OK for