From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id CB74C3858D20; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:13:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CB74C3858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710184409;
	bh=QGru+UHXkKlgvTg3Exszr+hgRwd7WjloiG8A+q478ow=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=enDw7gCd9Hk37EVWp+5Tp16G7pVFFzVceQPP5LhQhGmKWfxSk9zSCOGa9wH6i/5R6
	 DbQd71qsM+R5CQaK1HGlfRF1DYlzvQy05dOBHwi1/913hJLuEaz4P1zJliQhlTN+NZ
	 DF0scStjUTApwNg6ya3cKeqYPyDDE3s5c6cHhkN0=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyBsaWJmb3J0cmFuLzExNDMwNF0gWzEzLzE0IFJlZ3Jlc3Np?=
 =?UTF-8?B?b25dIGxpYmdmb3J0cmFuIEkvTyDigJMgYm9ndXMgIlNlbWljb2xvbiBub3Qg?=
 =?UTF-8?B?YWxsb3dlZCBhcyBzZXBhcmF0b3Igd2l0aCBERUNJTUFMPSdwb2ludCci?=
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 19:13:28 +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: rguenther at suse dot de
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: <bug-114304-4-SoM2oVdEja@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114304-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114304-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114304

--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
> Am 11.03.2024 um 20:03 schrieb jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla=
@gcc.gnu.org>:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFhttps://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114304
>=20
> --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Patch on comment #8 breaks all sorts of things. Not so obvious. I will try
> reverting the original hunk from pr105473 and then work from there.

Just to add, I think rejecting something we accepted before and when this
doesn=E2=80=99t fix a rejects-valid shouldn=E2=80=99t be done on branches a=
nd given it affects
the standard library, when it=E2=80=99s SONAME is not altered as it might a=
ffect
programs compiled with older libgfortran (maybe there=E2=80=99s the argumen=
t for
something like a LIBGFORTRAN_STRICT environment to control such if really
needed?)

> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.=