On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 11:29:45PM +0100, FX wrote:
> > Thinking out loud here. I wonder, however, if we want
> > to future proof the library against changes to the
> > options passed by having a few spare unused entried
> > available. This of course only helps if a new option
> > needs to be ad
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 01:54:34PM +0200, Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Paul Richard Thomas
> wrote:
>
> I'm seeing the same thing, I guess. Or rather that the ts->type == 81
> which is non-sensical. No idea where that comes from..
>
> Backtrace from gdb:
>
> #0 gfc_c
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 08:13:01AM -0700, Steven G. Kargl wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:47:40PM +0200, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> >
> > This is OK for trunk. Are you backporting any of these fixes? If so,
> > you're OK to go back to 5-branch.
> >
>
>
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:47:40PM +0200, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> This is OK for trunk. Are you backporting any of these fixes? If so,
> you're OK to go back to 5-branch.
>
I have a pile of *.diff files that I will someday
apply to at least 6. I know I have lost a few diffs,
so those nee
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 05:09:59PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Aug 29 2016, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:10:41AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> On Aug 26 2016, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >>
> >> > 2016-08-25 Steven
