Am 03.04.2018 um 17:21 schrieb Dominique d'Humières:
Hi Dominique,
The new patch regtest fine now. However as said on IRC this looks as a kludge
made necessary by a questionable (invalid) test.
What I want to avoid is to have first an error and then a warning
for the same thing. If we say th
Hi Thomas,
> Le 31 mars 2018 à 13:57, Thomas König a écrit :
>
> Hi Dominique,
>
> These have been resolved now - I have removed the invalid code
> from substr_6.f90 (PR85130), and the error is now suppressed
> in the attached patch.
>
> Re-regression-tested. OK for trunk?
>
> Regards
The ne
Hi Dominique,
If I am not mistaken, the patch causes:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr71935.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/sub
Hi Thomas,
If I am not mistaken, the patch causes:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/pr71935.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6.f90 -O0 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6.f90 -O1 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6.f90 -O2 execution test
FAIL: gfortran.dg/substr_6
Hello world,
the attached patch potentially saves some space in the object file by
simplifying access to individual elements of a parameter array, which
means that the original parameter may not be needed any more.
Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
Regards
Thomas
2018-03-25 Thomas Koe
