Hi Harald,
Oops, I've mixed up the two attachments. Sorry for that and thank you for
detecting it and ok'ing. I will merge tomorrow morning.
Thanks again,
Andre
Andre Vehreschild * ve...@gmx.de
Am 24. Februar 2025 20:22:25 schrieb Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de>:
Hi Andre,
Am 24.02.25 um 16:44 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:
Hi Harald,
I have added some comment(s). Can you take another look?
assuming that you refer to the attachment of the other submission:
that one is perfect!
This one is also OK.
Thanks for the patch(es)!
Harald
Regtested ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / F41. Ok for mainline?
Regards,
Andre
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 17:36:55 +0100
Andre Vehreschild <ve...@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi Harald,
thanks for the review. Silently I'd hoped that there is some macro to get
the i-th argument, that I just haven't found and someone could point me to.
I will add a comment, when ko one comes up with the macro by Monday.
Thanks,
Andre
Andre Vehreschild * ve...@gmx.de
Am 22. Februar 2025 15:29:20 schrieb Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de>:
Hi Andre,
Am 21.02.25 um 14:35 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:
Hi all,
during testing and compiling some larger coarray codes, I found a few
deficiencies. One was with handling class types when splitting the coarray
expression and the other was that the backend_decl of a formal argument in
a function's symbol was not the same as the one the function was compiled
to. So looking at the function-decl's tree n-th formal argument is the way
to go there.
Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / F41. Ok for mainline?
I am amazed that you do not get lost handling 9-fold nested
macros! This is OK, as this touches your CAF code.
Otherwise, I'd recommend to add an explaining comment in the
code or code such that mere mortals have a better chance to
follow...
Thanks,
Harald
Regards,
Andre
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
