Hello Mikael,
thanks for the review. Regarding:
Mikael Morin wrote:
is there a reason to guard the class_pointer condition with
attr.class_ok in the first conditional and with CLASS_DATA(...) !=
NULL in the two other ones? Not that it matters much, and in fact, I
think the patch as is is good
On 12/04/2012 17:23, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> This patch is a kind of follow up to the other one for the same PR -
> though this one is for a separate test case, it is not a regression and
> it's about actual/formal checks.
>
> When trying to fix the rejects-valid bug, I realized that one function
>
*ping*
Tobias
PS: I know I should be also faster in reviewing patches of others...
On 04/12/2012 05:23 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
This patch is a kind of follow up to the other one for the same PR -
though this one is for a separate test case, it is not a regression
and it's about actual/formal
This patch is a kind of follow up to the other one for the same PR -
though this one is for a separate test case, it is not a regression and
it's about actual/formal checks.
When trying to fix the rejects-valid bug, I realized that one function
was never accessed as a call to expr.c's gfc_chec
