Hi Paul,
thanks for the reviews. Let me ask one questions before I do something wrong.
You have reviewed and approved (with changes) the patches:
- vtab_access_rework1_v1.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00074.html
- vtab_access_rework2_v1.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00075.html
- pr64787_v2.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00085.html
and
- pr55901_v1.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00086.html
, right?
I am asking so explicitly, because there are four more patches from me in the
wild, that await review (not necessarily from you, Paul), namely:
- pr60322_base_1.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-02/msg00105.html
- pr60322_3.patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00032.html
- crashfix2_v1.patch (small patch, ~100 loc))
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00063.html
and
- cosm_simp.patch (tiny patch, ~20 loc)
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00088.html
Please don't get me wrong on this. I just want to prevent misunderstandings
here. The latter four patches are not yet approved, right?
I will now apply the 4.9-trunk patch and wait for your answer before applying
the above four on vtab_rework pr64787 and pr55901.
Regards,
Andre
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 08:33:51 +0100
Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Andre,
>
> I am persuaded by the arguments of Jerry and Dominique that this is
> good for trunk. Please commit as early as possible in order that any
> regressions can be caught, if possible, before release.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
> On 21 March 2015 at 15:11, Paul Richard Thomas
> <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Andre,
> >
> > I have applied the three preliminary patches but have not yet applied
> > the attached one for PR55901. As advertised the composite patch
> > bootstraps and regtests on FC21,x86_64.
> >
> > I went through gfc_trans_allocate and cleaned up the formatting and
> > some of the text in the comments. You did a heroic job to tidy up this
> > function and so I thought that I should do my bit - one of the
> > feature, previously, was that the line length often went well in
> > excess of the gcc style guide limit of 72 and this tended to make it
> > somewhat unreadable. I have not been rigorous about this, especially
> > when readability would be impaired thereby, but it does look a lot
> > better now. The composite diff is attached.
> >
> > Not only does the Metcalf example run correctly but also the PGI
> > Insider linked list example. I have attached a version of this
> > modified to function as a gfortran.dg testcase. With the attributions
> > in there, I do not think that there are any copyright issues. The
> > article itself has no copyright notice.
> >
> > I would very much like to say that this is OK for trunk but we are
> > hard up against the end of stage 4 and so it should really wait for
> > backporting to 5.2.
> >
> > Thanks for the patches
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > On 19 March 2015 at 16:13, Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> please find attached the parts missing to stop valgrind's complaining
> >> about the use of uninitialized memory. The issue was, that when
> >> constructing a temporary class-object to call a routine with unlimited
> >> polymorphic arguments, the _len component was never set. This is fixed by
> >> this patch now.
> >>
> >> Note, the patch is based on all these preliminary patches:
> >>
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00074.html
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00075.html
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2015-03/msg00085.html
> >>
> >> Bootstraps and regtests ok on x86_64-linux-gnu/F20.
> >>
> >> Please review!
> >>
> >> - Andre
> >> --
> >> Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
> > too dark to read.
> >
> > Groucho Marx
>
>
>
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
