On 03/03/12 08:41, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Dear Tobias,
>
> This is certainly OK for 4.8.
>
> I have a couple of remarks:
> (i) The DTYPE_TYPE_MASK is 0x38 so that we saturated it a long time
> since! At the moment it does not cause any problems because of the
> extremely limited use of the
Tobias Burnus wrote:
_3.f90: [...]
"fourteen" is really odd: Depending on the position of that subroutine
in file, I get an error or not. I think one should try to better
understand why that happens.
I found it with the help of Paul. The problem was that I set instead of
re-set the variable
Tobias Burnus wrote:
thanks for the review.
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
[...]
Something is odd. The test case didn't regtest, but I could swear that
it did so yesterday.
_1.f90: That was correctly failing because one cannot pass an
assumed-size array to an assumed-shape array.
_4.f90: Som
Dear Paul,
thanks for the review.
Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
I have a couple of remarks:
(i) The DTYPE_TYPE_MASK is 0x38 so that we saturated it a long time
since! At the moment it does not cause any problems because of the
extremely limited use of the dtype 'type'. Whilst the array
descripto
Dear Tobias,
This is certainly OK for 4.8.
I have a couple of remarks:
(i) The DTYPE_TYPE_MASK is 0x38 so that we saturated it a long time
since! At the moment it does not cause any problems because of the
extremely limited use of the dtype 'type'. Whilst the array
descriptor revamp will elimin
