This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: gfortran error format (was: Re: Emacs and GFortran)
- From: "François-Xavier Coudert" <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: ams at gnu dot org
- Cc: sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu, wt at atmos dot colostate dot edu, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:44:32 +0100
- Subject: Re: gfortran error format (was: Re: Emacs and GFortran)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ifQ8UEwGiMR+74FTuPlRsS1NE0FilFwtEykQifhIBeCr/LlfsFI5riNQskdelsdhPunVXlWUMiOu0sP0GTLiyruBm98CGOBmWKyXz7FSKhol9KK6eb0BliGYMKVVlsKmV4xzyKyUuxf48IaCtLjAr0BA9XtHZ2QX5HzQbZ0ghEg=
- References: <19c433eb0611020608v3695ef7ex7cbe998347760d19@mail.gmail.com> <20061102142023.0BBF044043@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE>
[removing the emacs-devel list as it's not so emacs-related any more]
A purposed patch that makes gfortran follow the GCS is already
purposed and submitted, two version of it one backward compatible (g77
style) and one that is not exist.
I take it you refer to patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-11/msg00017.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00825.html
Both probably need fixing the testsuite framework, because when
applied they generate lots of failures right now. The right place is
gcc/testsuite/lib/gfortran-dg.exp, line 107; the regexp needs to be
changed.
Speaking of the patches themselves, the first one gives:
-------------------------------------
error.inc:1:
In file error.inc:1
Included at error.f90:2
integer i
1
error.f90:3:
In file error.f90:3
call i(j)
2
Error: 'i' at (1) has a type, which is not consistent with the CALL at (2)
-------------------------------------
which makes things hard to read in my opinion. The second one is
probably better.
I've added a link to your patches in the PR.
I do not wish to spend any more on this
Neither do I. I'm trying to be efficient here.
I think it is clear what should be done
I also think it's clear what should be done, but I have other things
to do. I guess it's what other people here have said also. We're a
small team handling large tasks.
what is requested is a trivial change but people being stubborn and
making up excuses.
The only excuse you'll be hearing is: low-priority. Which is,
unfortunately, true. I wish we had nothing higher-profile than
diagnostic bugs for which a workaround is trivial.
FX