From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 83592 invoked by alias); 15 May 2017 20:29:35 -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 83298 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2017 20:29:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mtaout006-public.msg.strl.va.charter.net Received: from mtaout006-public.msg.strl.va.charter.net (HELO mtaout006-public.msg.strl.va.charter.net) (68.114.190.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 May 2017 20:29:33 +0000 Received: from impout006 ([68.114.189.21]) by mtaout006.msg.strl.va.charter.net (InterMail vM.9.00.023.01 201-2473-194) with ESMTP id <20170515202935.MPWQ7358.mtaout006.msg.strl.va.charter.net@impout006>; Mon, 15 May 2017 15:29:35 -0500 Received: from amda8.localdomain ([66.96.68.179]) by impout006 with charter.net id LkVY1v0093s45Ca01kVZ8Q; Mon, 15 May 2017 15:29:35 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=TffmjVYh c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=gdXPXWgXYTtlN2u9hNmWFw==:117 a=gdXPXWgXYTtlN2u9hNmWFw==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=bxRee8h4OnWhg10G9vsA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-Auth-id: anZkZWxpc2xlQGNoYXJ0ZXIubmV0 Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR80554 [f08] variable redefinition in submodule To: Paul Richard Thomas , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches References: From: Jerry DeLisle Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 20:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg01221.txt.bz2 On 05/15/2017 04:10 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > The attached bootstraps and regtests on FC23/x86_64 - OK for trunk and > later for 7-branch? > > The comment in the patch and the ChangeLog are sufficiently clear that > no further explanation is needed here. > Looks OK Paul, thanks, Jerry