>> The change may be small enough that an assignment isn't needed. >> We (ie, the gfortran developers) will need to check. > > I think that’s small enough, compared to what we’ve accepted as such in the > past. > If not, a disclaimer by Russell putting his change in the public domain would > also be a quick way: https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal
Let me know either way. > Regarding the patch itself, it seems OK. (I first wondered if the strcmp() is > necessary, but it appears module strings at this point are not GCC > identifiers, but normal strings.) That was my understanding. At any rate, I based the logic on the existing check for unused equivalences. > Russell, you said “tested on x86_64-linux”. Could you explicitly confirm that > you have bootstrapped it and regression-tested the full gfortran testsuite ? Yes, as long as `make check-fortran` is the full gfortran testsuite. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:08 AM, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The change may be small enough that an assignment isn't needed. >> We (ie, the gfortran developers) will need to check. > > I think that’s small enough, compared to what we’ve accepted as such in the > past. > If not, a disclaimer by Russell putting his change in the public domain would > also be a quick way: https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal > >> Having an assignment will help when you submit additional patches. :-) > > Indeed! > > > Regarding the patch itself, it seems OK. (I first wondered if the strcmp() is > necessary, but it appears module strings at this point are not GCC > identifiers, but normal strings.) > > Russell, you said “tested on x86_64-linux”. Could you explicitly confirm that > you have bootstrapped it and regression-tested the full gfortran testsuite ? > > Cheers, > FX
