Thomas Koenig wrote:
- [patch, fortran] Trim spaces on list-directed reads
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00040.html
That one was committed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2012-04/msg00417.html
Jerry indicated that this would also be OK for a backport; I'll
do that within a few days unless there are objections.
I prefer if you do not back port it. It is not a regression and it does
not solve a serious deficit. It only seems to be for very special cases.
In addition, the results shown by Dominique and Manfred support the
caution: While there is no speedup, there is now the use of an
uninitialized value.
A more general question: I habe been a bit inconsistent in notifying
the mailing list about committed patches; I didn't do this for these
patches. What would people, generally, prefer? Should we notify on
commit,
or rather not?
I think that it is usually not necessary as one can quickly check the
ChangeLog(s) and usually the time between submittal, approval and
committal is relatively short. But I don't mind if someone mentions at
the mailing list the committal. On the other hand, "committed as
obvious" committals should be send to the mailing list - with the patch.
However, currently, the patch review is a bit shaky. Thus, I thought it
makes sense to create a list of pending patches.
* * *
Updated list of pending patches:
First, I would like to ping my patch:
- [Patch, Fortran] PR52864 - fix actual/formal checks
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00059.html
Other patches with pending review:
- [Patch, Fortran, F03] PR52909: Procedure pointers not private to modules
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00033.html
Caveat: ABI breakage
- [patch, fortran] PR fortran/52537 Optimize string comparisons against empty
strings
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00068.html
- [Patch, libfortran] Combine get_mem and internal_malloc_size
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-03/msg00127.html
Approved but not yet committed:
My patch:
- [Patch, Fortran] PR52864 - Fix pointer-intent regresssion
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00058.html
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00058.html> (Backporting pending)
Bernhard:
- [PATCH] gfortran testsuite: implicitly cleanup-modules, part 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00065.html
Janne:
- [Patch, fortran] PR 49010/24518 MOD/MODULO fixes
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2012-04/msg00012.html
Okayed but haven't found best wording.
Tobias
