Re: porting-to update request

[NightStrike]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 2:02 PM NightStrike  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 11:04 AM NightStrike  wrote:
> >
> > Between GCC 9 and 10, the following code now errors out:
> >
> > integer function fcn(x)
> >   implicit none
> >   integer, intent(in) :: x
> >   fcn = x * '0100'X
> > end function fcn
> >
> > Error: BOZ constant at (1) uses nonstandard postfix syntax [see
> > '-fno-allow-invalid-boz']
> > Compiler returned: 1
> >
> > First, the error message is wrong regarding the option to go see:
> >
> > gfortran: error: unrecognized command-line option
> > '-fno-allow-invalid-boz'; did you mean '-fallow-invalid-boz'?
> >
> > Second, that option doesn't protect against the aforementioned case.
> >
> > Third, and the main point of this email I guess, is that the
> > porting-to page should mention this:
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc-10/porting_to.html
> >
> > It talks about argument mismatches, but it doesn't talk about BOZ
> > literals in expressions, which used to be (perhaps incorrectly)
> > accepted.  There is no new command line option to accept this legacy
> > code, so the webpage should be updated at a minimum.
>
> Should I open a bugzilla PR about this?

Is this email list still active? :)

Re: [Fortran, Patch, PR119380, v1] Fix freeing procedure pointers in components

[Andre Vehreschild]

Hi all,

the backport to gcc-14 has been committed as: gcc-14.2.0-996-gf955c5b409a

Regards,
Andre

On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:33:37 +0100
Andre Vehreschild  wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> well, I had those might complicated patches bit my mightily. So let's hope for
> the best :-)
>
> Thanks for the review. Committed with your proposed change in the testcase as
> gcc-15-8642-ga5c69abf138
>
> Thanks again,
>   Andre
>
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 10:40:11 +
> Paul Richard Thomas  wrote:
>
> > Hi Andre,
> >
> > Gosh, that's a mighty complicated patch :-) I suggest changing the comment
> > in the test case:
> >
> > s/Check that components of procedure pointer aren't freeed./Do not free
> > procedure pointer components/ or some such.
> >
> > OK for mainline and, I propose, 14-branch.
> >
> > Regards and thanks
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 at 09:38, Andre Vehreschild  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > attached patch fixes freeing of procedure pointers that are stored in a
> > > derived
> > > type's component. GFortran did that already for polymorphic types but
> > > missed
> > > out on the others.
> > >
> > > Regtested ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / F41. Ok for mainline?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Andre
> > > --
> > > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
> > >
>
>
> --
> Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de


--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de