Re: [gfortran] patch for pr libfortran/21303

[FX Coudert <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>]

> I am using i686-pc-linux-gnu (aka Fedora Core 4)

I am also using a i686-pc-linux-gnu. To be sure, I updated my tree, 
removed other (pending) patches and bootstrapped from scratch. After 
that, running the fmt_l.f90 testcase gives:

$ make check-fortran RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=fmt_l.f90"
[... snip ...]
                === gfortran Summary ===

# of expected passes            152
/home/fxcoudert/svn/debug/ibin/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran  
version 4.2.0 20060219 (experimental)


To be sure, I attached the final patch one again (but it's really the 
same as the previous diff with the updated fmt_l.f90).

> At compile time with -std=f95 -pedantic:
>
> The warning is:
>
> $ gfc -std=f95  fmt_l.f90
>  In file fmt_l.f90:14
>
> or" }
>     1
> Warning: Positive width required in format string at (1).  Also notice 
> the location is off at the end of the comment.
>
> So the message does not match the dg-warning.  I gather this is not 
> what you intended.

No, the warning I'm expecting happens with -std=gnu -pedantic. I could 
also test the warning issued with -std=f95, which is as you noted 
different (because it's the general warning for such problems), but 
that would mean having either a run-time error (which is harder to 
test) or no runtime output at all (and I'd like to test the runtime 
warning).

So, in short: I'm sure I want to use -std=gnu -pedantic as dg-options, 
though we still have to figure out why it's working for me and not for 
you. If someone else could spare a few cycles on this, I'd be glad.

FX

Attachment: pr21303.diff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: pr21303.ChangeLog
Description: Binary data