Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100120/100816/100818/100819/100821 problems raised by aggregate data types

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100120/100816/100818/100819/100821 problems raised by aggregate data types

[dhumieres.dominique]

Hi José,

> Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me.

Thanks for the work,

Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100120/100816/100818/100819/100821 problems raised by aggregate data types

[Paul Richard Thomas]

Hi José,

I can second Dominique's thanks. I applied it to my tree when you first
posted, set the regtest in motion and have not been able to return to
gfortran matters since.

OK for master.

I am especially happy that you have tackled this area and have rationalised
it to a substantial degree. The wheel keeps being re-invented by different
people, largely for a lack of documentation or coherent self-documentation.
I know, as one of the guilty ones.

Regards

Paul


On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 16:05, dhumieres.dominique--- via Fortran <
fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> Hi José,
>
> > Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me.
>
> Thanks for the work,
>
> Dominique
>


-- 
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" -
Albert Einstein

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100120/100816/100818/100819/100821 problems raised by aggregate data types

[dhumieres.dominique]

Since the PRs are about wrong code, I think the patch should be back 
ported to at least GCC11.

Dominique

Le 2021-06-04 17:24, Paul Richard Thomas a écrit :
> Hi José,
> 
> I can second Dominique's thanks. I applied it to my tree when you
> first posted, set the regtest in motion and have not been able to
> return to gfortran matters since.
> 
> OK for master.
> 
> I am especially happy that you have tackled this area and have
> rationalised it to a substantial degree. The wheel keeps being
> re-invented by different people, largely for a lack of documentation
> or coherent self-documentation. I know, as one of the guilty ones.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Paul
> 
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 16:05, dhumieres.dominique--- via Fortran
> <fortran@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi José,
>> 
>>> Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>> 
>> Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me.
>> 
>> Thanks for the work,
>> 
>> Dominique
> 
> --
> "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"
> - Albert Einstein

Re:[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/93308/93963/94327/94331/97046 problems raised by descriptor handling

[dhumieres.dominique]

Hi José,

> Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me provided the updated 
PR94331.c test file replaces the original one.
Since the PRs are about wrong code, I think the patch should be 
backported to at least GCC11 (applied and regtested OK).

Thanks for the work,

Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran v2] PR fortran/93308/93963/94327/94331/97046 problems raised by descriptor handling

[dhumieres.dominique]

Le 2021-06-06 19:58, dhumieres.dominique@free.fr a écrit :
> Hi José,
> 
>> Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> 
> Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me provided the updated
> PR94331.c test file replaces the original one.
> Since the PRs are about wrong code, I think the patch should be
> backported to at least GCC11 (applied and regtested OK).
> 
> Thanks for the work,
> 
> Dominique

OK for the new version.

Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran V3] PR fortran/100683 - Array initialization refuses valid

[dhumieres.dominique]

Hi José,

The logic is now much clearer.
OK for the new version. Thanks for the work.

Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran V3] PR fortran/100683 - Array initialization refuses valid (list of pending patches)

[dhumieres.dominique]

Hi José,

> > Thus: Do you have a list of patches pending review?

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055924.html

PRs 100029 and 100040. I have the patch in my working tree
for a long time. It works as expected. OK to commit.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055933.html

PRs 100097 and 100098. New patch at

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056169.html

OK to commit the new patch.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056168.html

PR 96870.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056167.html

PR 96724. OK to commit.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056163.html

PRs 93308, 93963, 94327, 94331, and 97046.
Already OKed at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056184.html
and
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056193.html

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056162.html

PR 94104.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056155.html

PR 100948.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056154.html

PRs 100906, 100907, 100911, 100914, 100915, and 100916.
Tis patch works for me when applied to GCC12 (not GCC11)
but seems to conflict with the patch for
PRs 93308, 93963, 94327, 94331, and 97046.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056152.html

PR 10148.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056159.html

PR 92621.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055982.html

PR 100245.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055949.html

PR 100136.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055946.html

PR 100132.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055934.html

PR 100103.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-June/056169.html

PRs 100097 and 100098. OK for me.

> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055921.html

PRs 100024 and 100025. OK for me.

Thanks for the great work, but please don't forget to mark the PRs
as ASSIGNED and don't hesitate to PING after a week.

Dominique