Re: [PATCH, committed][gcc-5-branch] Fix broken test case derived_constructor_comps_6.f90

2016-01-25 Thread Peter Bergner
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 18:51 +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > On 25 January 2016 at 18:33, Peter Bergner wrote: >> I'll leave it to you or someone else to fix the -m32 bug, since >> I'm not seeing it on my system. > > Neither am I :-( I have a powerpc64-linux (ie, BE)

[PATCH, committed][gcc-5-branch] Fix broken test case derived_constructor_comps_6.f90

2016-01-25 Thread Peter Bergner
When the test case derived_constructor_comps_6.f90 was backported to the FSF 5 branch, a '}' on the dg-additional-options was dropped causing the test case to fail. I have added it back and committed it as obvious. Peter PR fortran/61831 *

Re: [PATCH, committed][gcc-5-branch] Fix broken test case derived_constructor_comps_6.f90

2016-01-25 Thread Paul Richard Thomas
Dear Peter, Many thanks! I have been away, got back last night and had intended to deal with it tonight. You should note that Dominique has flagged up that it fails with -m32. Tshuess Paul On 25 January 2016 at 18:09, Peter Bergner wrote: > When the test case

Re: [PATCH, committed][gcc-5-branch] Fix broken test case derived_constructor_comps_6.f90

2016-01-25 Thread Peter Bergner
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 18:17 +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > Many thanks! I have been away, got back last night and had intended > to deal with it tonight. No problem. > You should note that Dominique has flagged up that it fails with > -m32. I was building on powerpc64le-linux (which

Re: [PATCH, committed][gcc-5-branch] Fix broken test case derived_constructor_comps_6.f90

2016-01-25 Thread Paul Richard Thomas
Neither am I :-( Paul On 25 January 2016 at 18:33, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 18:17 +0100, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: >> Many thanks! I have been away, got back last night and had intended >> to deal with it tonight. > > No problem. > > >> You should note