From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10200 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2015 13:51:30 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 10176 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jun 2015 13:51:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-wg0-f44.google.com Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f44.google.com) (74.125.82.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:51:28 +0000 Received: by wgqq4 with SMTP id q4so10388577wgq.1; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:51:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.78.110 with SMTP id a14mr41472436wjx.87.1435672285301; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.100.12] (chp127.enscp.fr. [193.51.253.127]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id v3sm17620133wiy.1.2015.06.30.06.51.23 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR52846 - [F2008] Support submodules From: FX In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:59:00 -0000 Cc: "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches , Damian Rouson , Tobias Burnus , "salvatore.filippone@uniroma2.it" , "Bader, Reinhold" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6474D686-B29C-4D37-985A-8AE78492E11B@gmail.com> References: To: Paul Richard Thomas X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg02222.txt.bz2 Hi Paul, I don=E2=80=99t feel confident enough in many parts of the code (including = the module part) to formally review it, but from what I=E2=80=99ve read it = seemed rather logical and well-commented. If it regtests fine, I think your= plan (especially at the current GCC stage) of committing this week is soun= d. One question I had is: does this change the .mod file format in any case? I= don=E2=80=99t think, cause you don=E2=80=99t seem to bump the version numb= er, but have you checked on specific cases (like, the mega cp2k example) th= at the patch indeed does not change existing module files (the ones that do= not use submodules)? Cheers, and thanks for this patch! FX