Re: [patch, fortran] Fix PR 45786, operator == versus .eq. in public/private

2011-05-29 Thread Thomas Koenig
Hi Steve, On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 04:08:54PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: Regression-tested on trunk. OK for trunk and 4.6? What about 4.5? OK for trunk and 4.6. If it applies cleanly to 4.5 and passes regression testing, then you can also commit to 4.5 at your discretion. Committed t

Re: [patch, fortran] Fix PR 45786, operator == versus .eq. in public/private

2011-05-29 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 04:08:54PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Regression-tested on trunk. OK for trunk and 4.6? What about 4.5? > > Thomas > > 2011-05-29 Thomas Koenig > > PR fortran/45786 > * interface.c (gfc_equivalent_op): New function. > (gfc_check_i

[patch, fortran] Fix PR 45786, operator == versus .eq. in public/private

2011-05-29 Thread Thomas Koenig
Hello world, the attached patch fixes PR 45786, where using == instead of .eq. in a PUBLIC statement caused us to miss exporting the symbol. I introduced a function for equivalencing INTRINSIC_EQ with INTRINSIC_EQ_OS (and others), which I also used in another place to tidy up the code a bit. Re