Hi Andre, The code is standard boilerplate in handling arrays and looks OK to me. That said, I know next to nothing about the handling of co-arrays in gfortran. I hope that others can pick up anything that I have missed.
Since you are likely to produce a stream (and have already) of co-array patches and we are very light on the ground, I suggest that you take responsibility for keeping an eye out for reports of errors or regressions with a view to correcting them on the fly. I tried to apply the patch but git apply responded with "error: corrupt patch at line 79". That said I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with it. Some minor nits: < into account. Furthermore were different cobounds in distinct < procedure parameter lists mixed up, i.e. the last definition was taken --- > into account. Furthermore different cobounds in distinct procedure > parameter lists were mixed up, i.e. the last definition was taken 48c48 < the cobounds of the existing declaration and expr to not --- > the cobounds of the existing declaration and expr do not 91c91 < work on the declared type. All array type other than deferred shape or --- > work on the declared type. All array types other than deferred shape or 546c546 < +call st(A) ! FIXME --- > +call st(A) As far as I am concerned, it is OK for mainline. Thanks for the patch Paul On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 14:05, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > just pinging on this patch. The attached patch is rebased to an unmodified > master as of this afternoon (CEST 3 p.m.). > > Anyone in for a review? > > Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / Fedora 39. Ok for mainline? > > Regards, > Andre > > On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 11:17:44 +0200 > Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > the attached patch fixes explicit cobounds of procedure parameters not > > respected. The central issue is, that class (array) types store their > > attributes and `as` in the first component of the derived type. This made > > comparison of existing types harder and gfortran confused generated > trees for > > different cobounds. The attached patch fixes this. > > > > Note, the patch is based > > on https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2024-July/060645.html . > Without it the > > test poly_run_2 fails. > > > > Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/Fedora 39. Ok for mainline? > > > > This patch also fixes PR fortran/80774. > > > > Regards, > > Andre > > -- > > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de > > > -- > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de >
