Re: [Patch, fortran V3] PR fortran/100683 - Array initialization refuses valid (list of pending patches)

Hi José, > Thus: Do you have a list of patches pending review? https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055924.html PRs 100029 and 100040. I have the patch in my working tree for a long time. It works as expected. OK to commit. https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/0559

Re: [Patch, fortran V3] PR fortran/100683 - Array initialization refuses valid

Hi José, The logic is now much clearer. OK for the new version. Thanks for the work. Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran v2] PR fortran/93308/93963/94327/94331/97046 problems raised by descriptor handling

Le 2021-06-06 19:58, dhumieres.domini...@free.fr a écrit : Hi José, Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me provided the updated PR94331.c test file replaces the original one. Since the PRs are about wrong code, I think the patch should be bac

Re:[Patch, fortran] PR fortran/93308/93963/94327/94331/97046 problems raised by descriptor handling

Hi José, Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me provided the updated PR94331.c test file replaces the original one. Since the PRs are about wrong code, I think the patch should be backported to at least GCC11 (applied and regtested OK). Th

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100120/100816/100818/100819/100821 problems raised by aggregate data types

ne of the guilty ones. Regards Paul On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 16:05, dhumieres.dominique--- via Fortran wrote: Hi José, Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me. Thanks for the work, Dominique -- "If you can't explain it si

Re: [Patch, fortran] PR fortran/100120/100816/100818/100819/100821 problems raised by aggregate data types

Hi José, Patch tested only on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Also tested on darwin20. The patch is OK for me. Thanks for the work, Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran] 99307 - FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_assign_4.f90 execution test

Le 2021-03-26 19:20, Paul Richard Thomas a écrit : Hi Dominique, What I meant was a test that would confirm the fix on all targets. BTW thanks for testing the patch! A Paul The second patch works as the first one. IMO a test case for all targets should not delay the fix. Dominique

Re: off-by-one buffer overflow patch

Le 2021-03-27 06:36, Jerry DeLisle a écrit : On 3/26/21 10:38 AM, dhumieres.dominique--- via Fortran wrote: I have proposed a similar patch in pr95998. I cannot commit to git!-( Thanks Dominique I do not see a patch in 95998.  Do you need help to do a commit? Jerry I was too quick and

Re: off-by-one buffer overflow patch

I have proposed a similar patch in pr95998. I cannot commit to git!-( Thanks Dominique

Re: [Patch, fortran] 99307 - FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_assign_4.f90 execution test

Hi Paul, I have your first patch in my working tree for some time. It works as expected without breaking anything in my own tests. I couldn't readily see how to prepare a testcase - ideas? I think the testcase is already in the test suite. Note the problem also affects GCC10 with a new rel

*PING* — Re: Fortran: Create CLASS(*) early to avoid ICE [PR99254]

Hi Tobias, I just tested your patch and I see a regression: FAIL: gfortran.dg/unlimited_polymorphic_28.f90 -O (test for errors, line 24) Cheers, Dominique