From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.95.76.21]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D2673858C33; Tue, 9 May 2023 18:44:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 6D2673858C33 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=troutmask.apl.washington.edu Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=troutmask.apl.washington.edu Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 349Ii9IC009796 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 May 2023 11:44:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 349Ii9tV009795; Tue, 9 May 2023 11:44:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 11:44:09 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Harald Anlauf Cc: Paul Richard Thomas , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches , "Steven G. Kargl" Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR97122 - Spurious FINAL ... must be in the specification part of a MODULE Message-ID: Reply-To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu References: <9b573e6c-52e0-ce7c-6ae4-9b21a55525e9@gmx.de> <32e20f0e-cf48-f71d-2f2b-cd24d0d0eefd@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32e20f0e-cf48-f71d-2f2b-cd24d0d0eefd@gmx.de> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: 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. > > > > You're absolutely right. So it is OK as is. Thanks for keeping us honest and the review. -- Steve