From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 8882D3858C31; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:02:45 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8882D3858C31 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1710385365; bh=+65XqgsIhVpZ5pbdteo/eI3RlcOwW47JfRFgxm99r68=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=p+EVBqILrLmyZmtv0IvNezJ37Wicu6QG1NcTXErABG3h+a+8ZBuI7RSZfLCgHZ7Te iHUEPkR05FRslAuNjce9EINO56Bof+1YW5KjbUl1PTgLIZdudeDfqizNWUXZNkz6AT dolQqBRWahNc5vtWzG7hYEzfuUMvYZvg4UI+C3fM= From: "law at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyBsaWJmb3J0cmFuLzExNDMwNF0gbGliZ2ZvcnRyYW4gSS9P?= =?UTF-8?B?IOKAkyBib2d1cyAiU2VtaWNvbG9uIG5vdCBhbGxvd2VkIGFzIHNlcGFyYXRv?= =?UTF-8?B?ciB3aXRoIERFQ0lNQUw9J3BvaW50JyI=?= Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 03:02:42 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: law at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114304 --- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I don't have an opinion on the Fortran patch -- I think it's up to the Fort= ran front-end maintainers to make that decision. Given there's still a regression here, I'll put the marker back.=