From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22789 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2012 14:40:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 22770 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2012 14:40:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (HELO mail-wi0-f179.google.com) (209.85.212.179) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:39:56 +0000 Received: by wibhn6 with SMTP id hn6so2682808wib.8 for ; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.91.165 with SMTP id cf5mr5347486wib.2.1334327994671; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s42.loc (85-127-86-115.dynamic.xdsl-line.inode.at. [85.127.86.115]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ca3sm5171867wib.6.2012.04.13.07.39.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cow by s42.loc with local (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from ) id 1SIhfE-0005N3-QX; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:39:52 +0200 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:40:00 -0000 From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer To: Mike Stump Cc: fortran@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: PING Re: [PATCH] gfortran testsuite: implicitly cleanup-modules, part 2 Message-ID: <20120413143952.GC29324@mx.loc> References: <20120413105119.GA18379@mx.loc> <159B4B09-D17F-492F-AE76-0010848A28A7@comcast.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <159B4B09-D17F-492F-AE76-0010848A28A7@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00845.txt.bz2 On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:57:44AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >On Apr 13, 2012, at 3:51 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> Ping. > >Before advancing, has the problem that Rainer pointed out on March 19th with your earlier patch been fixed? I believe that it is fixed, yes. See r185688 and my follow up to him ( http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01498.html )