Dear Nicolas, This is indeed an obvious fix and it's OK for trunk
However, we would prefer it that you submit even blindingly obvious patches for a while. You can generally get rapid approval for such patches by joining us on #gfortran. Thanks for the patch. Paul PS Are you going to have a stab at the other failing cases in the PR? On 19 March 2017 at 22:41, Nicolas Koenig <koeni...@student.ethz.ch> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > a one-line-fix for one of the test cases in pr69498. The refs count of the > ppr@ symbol wasn't set properly. Attached are the patch & the test case. > > If I understand the 'Write Access' page correctly, this would be the kind of > patch I would not have to bother the mailing list with but instead could > commit directly? Would this count as an "obvious fix"? > > Nicolas > > Regression tested for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > 2017-03-18 Nicolas Koenig <koeni...@student.ethz.ch> > > PR fortran/69498 > * decl.c (add_hidden_procptr_result): Fixed Refs count of > the created "ppr@" symbol. > > 2017-03-18 Nicolas Koenig <koeni...@student.ethz.ch> > > PR fortran/69498 > * gfortran.dg/unexp_attribute.f90: New test > > -- "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein
