Hi Harald,
Yes indeed about proc_ptr_56.f90 :-( That was a slip that occurred in the
preparation of the patch for the list. I will indeed make proc_ptr_54.f90
compile-only for the time being. The latter was not elided from my platform
for any level of optimization for the simple reason that system updates
have been failing for a while because I have run out of disk space. I have
been putting off doing anything about it until I can put up with the
disruption.
Thanks for the review
Paul
On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 at 19:23, Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Am 05.11.24 um 16:24 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > There is not much to say about the attached patch other than it is
> minimal
> > :-) The testcases are probably a bit more than is strictly needed since
> the
> > interface tests (proc_ptr_55.f90) are already tested elsewhere. However,
> it
> > is as well to check in this context.
>
> the fix is fine, but testcase gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_56.f90 should be
>
> ! { dg-do compile }
>
> instead of
>
> ! { dg-do run }
>
> You'll notice that you get
>
> # of unresolved testcases 6
>
> when running it under the testsuite harness, because
>
> PASS: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_56.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_56.f90 -O0 compilation failed to
> produce executable
>
> the first line is expected, but not the second.
>
> > OK for mainline and 14-branch after a week or two?
>
> OK with the testcase fixed.
>
> > The issue with the executable stack on some platforms should have its own
> > PR to ensure that it has the required visibility. I can make
> > proc_ptr_64.f90 compile-only until it is fixed.
>
> I do not have any preference here. If any of the testers are affected,
> then having it compile-only might be the right choice.
>
> > Regards
> >
> > Paul
> >
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
> Harald
>
>
