Hi Andre,
> sorry, when I stepped on your toes. That was not my intention.
well, I kind of got the impression that me committing 'obvious'
patches was somehow getting in conflict with _your_ toes (though I
don't quite understand why). I care as much about the quality of
gfortran as you do, trust
Hi Janus,
sorry, when I stepped on your toes. That was not my intention. While looking at
your patch and its environment those thoughts came to me. Good that you could
destroy my doubts. Thank you very much.
> In fact I have not thought about any further cases. Since you're not
> giving full
Hi Andre,
> well, is it really that obvious?
well ... what can I say. If you wanna be strict about it, I guess
there is no such thing as an "obvious patch". There is basically
always something that you can miss, or that can be improved. Mikael's
patch was obvious to me in the sense that it is
Hi Janus,
well, is it really that obvious? It fixes the ICE, correct. But what about
cases where the actual has an explicit interface, but is not a variable? Like
in:
function f()
integer :: f
end function
call sub(f())
! sub() defined as in the pr.
I haven't checked whether that is valid
Hi all,
I have committed yet another obvious ice-on-invalid fix:
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242020=gcc=rev
Cheers,
Janus
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/interface.c (Revision 241993)
+++
