Hi all,
I've reverted the recent format changes, as three reviewers indicated they
caused more harm than good.
Are there any functional problems I need to address?
Thanks,
Yuao
0001-fortran-add-constant-input-support-for-trig-function.patch
Description: 0001-fortran-add-constant-input-support
On 5/27/25 11:24 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch fixes a variety of small issues with parsing of
inquiry references of substrings. The testcase exercises variations
of the examples in the PR and ensures that these are successfully
simplified.
Don't try it with other compi
Hi Jerry!
On 5/27/25 21:02, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:35 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:01 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
Am 20.05.25 um 05:23 schrieb Jerry D:
On 5/19/25 1:50 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
so contrary to what the name of patch claims (pr120049-final.diff),
it
On 5/27/25 12:39 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
On 5/27/25 21:02, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:35 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:01 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
Am 20.05.25 um 05:23 schrieb Jerry D:
On 5/19/25 1:50 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
so contrary to what the nam
Hi Jerry!
On 5/27/25 21:36, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/27/25 11:24 AM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Dear all,
the attached patch fixes a variety of small issues with parsing of
inquiry references of substrings. The testcase exercises variations
of the examples in the PR and ensures that these are successful
Yuao Ma wrote:
PR113152
If you run your patch through
./contrib/gcc-changelog/git_email.py
0001-fortran-add-constant-input-support-for-trig-function.patch
you will notice that the PR is not recognized. The format as mentioned before is "PR
component/number". Namely:
"PR fortran/113
After my last commit, I always rerun make check-fortran.
Now I see a bunch of fails. I reverted my patch locally and did a
rebuild and I still see these. Heralds patch still in there.
No failures after reverting this:
commit r16-914-g787a8dec1acedf5561c8ee43bed0b3653fca150d
Author: Harald Anl
Jerry, all,
that was entirely my fault - attempting a last-minute cleanup
that reordered code, trying to use a refactoring. I've put
on my brown bag and pushed a corrections as obvious as:
r16-921-g74a2281ae18c6d.
See attached.
Caveat: this was tested on top of r16-915, as I cannot compile
an
On 5/27/25 2:19 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Jerry, all,
that was entirely my fault - attempting a last-minute cleanup
that reordered code, trying to use a refactoring. I've put
on my brown bag and pushed a corrections as obvious as:
r16-921-g74a2281ae18c6d.
See attached.
Caveat: this was tested
Dear all,
the attached patch fixes a variety of small issues with parsing of
inquiry references of substrings. The testcase exercises variations
of the examples in the PR and ensures that these are successfully
simplified.
Don't try it with other compilers... ;-)
Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-g
On 5/20/25 12:35 PM, Jerry D wrote:
On 5/20/25 12:01 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry!
Am 20.05.25 um 05:23 schrieb Jerry D:
On 5/19/25 1:50 PM, Harald Anlauf wrote:
Hi Jerry,
so contrary to what the name of patch claims (pr120049-final.diff),
it fixes only the case of direct use of iso_c_b
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 02:17:46PM +, Yuao Ma wrote:
>
> I've reverted the recent format changes, as three reviewers indicated they
> caused more harm than good.
>
Thank you.
> Are there any functional problems I need to address?
I did not see any additional functional issues. Patch is
OK
12 matches
Mail list logo
