Re: [patch, fortran] Fix PR 26039, lack of conformance checking in some intrinsics

[Paul Thomas <paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr>]

Thomas

:REVIEWMAIL:

> Because I didn't know that this exists :-) Thanks for the hint.
>  
You are entirely welcome!  I am just using it for checking elemental 
subroutine arguments.

> What about this?  OK for 4.2 and (after some days) for 4.1?
>
> 	Thomas
>
> 2006-01-31  Thomas Koenig  <Thomas.Koenig@online.de>
>
> 	PR fortran/26039
> 	expr.c (gfc_check_conformance):  Reorder error message
> 	to avoid plural.
> 	check.c(gfc_check_minloc_maxloc):  Call gfc_check_conformance
> 	for checking arguments array and mask.
> 	(check_reduction):  Likewise.
>  
I am stunned that changing the error message did not bring the testsuite 
down in ruins.  Ah well, "chapeau" as they say around here.

> 2006-01-31  Thomas Koenig  <Thomas.Koenig@online.de>
>
> 	PR fortran/26039
> 	maxval_maxloc_conformance_1.f90:  New test.
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Index: expr.c
> ===================================================================
> --- expr.c	(revision 110306)
> +++ expr.c	(working copy)
> @@ -1821,7 +1821,7 @@ gfc_check_conformance (const char *optyp
>
>       if (op1_flag && op2_flag && mpz_cmp (op1_size, op2_size) != 0)
> 	{
> -	  gfc_error ("%s at %L has different shape on dimension %d (%d/%d)",
> +	  gfc_error ("different shape for %s at %L on dimension %d (%d/%d)",
>  
Yes, that's good.

The rest is fine; OK for trunk and for 4.1, after a few days as you say.

Thanks

Paul