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 F29273858D32; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 07:32:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org F29273858D32 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 3537WplZ015664 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 3 Jun 2023 00:32:51 -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 3537WpeN015663; Sat, 3 Jun 2023 00:32:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 00:32:51 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Thomas Koenig via Fortran Cc: Paul Richard Thomas , gcc-patches Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37336 finalization Message-ID: Reply-To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu References: <552d5ed3-d137-b9dd-7b67-e561070aa001@netcologne.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <552d5ed3-d137-b9dd-7b67-e561070aa001@netcologne.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 Sat, Jun 03, 2023 at 07:50:19AM +0200, Thomas Koenig via Fortran wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > I propose to backport > > r13-6747-gd7caf313525a46f200d7f5db1ba893f853774aee to 12-branch very > > soon. > > Is this something that we usually do? > > While finalization was basically broken before, some people still used > working subsets (or subsets that were broken, and they adapted or > wrote their code accordingly). > > What is the general opinion on that? I'm undecided. > I think a backport that fixes a bug that is a violation of Fortran standard is always okay. A backport of anything else is up to the discretion of the contributor. If pault or you or harald or ... want to backport a patch, after all these years, I think we should trust their judgement. -- Steve