Le 12/05/2015 08:43, Thomas Koenig a écrit : > Hi Mikael, > > >> To be honest, both patches look fragile to me. Yours because it leaves >> gfc_current_ns to its value, leaving the door open to other problems. >> Mine, well, because it's playing with a global variable, with the >> possible side-effects this could have. >> However, without a better idea, I'm OK with either patch (or both). > > I have found that playing around with gfc_current_ns can be quite > dangerous and can cause regressions in unexpected places. Specifically, > I tried wrapping the callers to create_var and insert_block in > save/restore wrappers for gfc_current_ns, and that caused quite > a few very strange regressions. > > So, working on the theory that a fix that may leave unknown problems > open is better than a fix that may introduce unknown problems, and > in order to get the regression out of the way, I have committed the > patch preventing multiple resolution of an array spec. > thanks.
