Re: [Patch, Fortran] attribute declaration outside of INTERFACE body (PR36361)

[Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>]

Janus Weil wrote:
> There is just one thing I need someone's opinion on: The new test case
> interface_24.f90 has some slight issues regarding error recovery. For
> "f2" and "f5" I commented out some lines of (normally valid) code, to
> get rid of excess errors:
>
>
>   dimension :: f2(4)
>   interface
>     real function f2()  ! { dg-error "outside its INTERFACE body" }
>     !end function
>   end interface
>
> Otherwise I get an additional error like:
>
>     end function
>       1
> Error: Expecting END INTERFACE statement at (1)
>
> Is this acceptable for a test case? Or should I rather use additional
> dg-errors to catch all of the excess errors? Right now I see no easy
> way to completely get rid of these recovery issues.
>   
Commenting the "end function" is OK as is to add another "dg-error 
"Expecting END FUNCTION".


> I have modified the fix for PR36275 a little, so that it also fixes
> PR36322, which is actually related.
Can you add PR36322 to ChangeLog? Additionally, note that for PR36275 
only comment 2 is fixed while comment 0 remains unfixed. (Please add a 
note there after check in.)


+  if (source == IFSRC_IFBODY && (sym->attr.dimension || sym->attr.allocatable))
+    {
+      gfc_error ("Attribute declaration for %s outside its INTERFACE body "


I somehow think the following wording is less clearer:


+  if (source == IFSRC_IFBODY && (sym->attr.dimension || sym->attr.allocatable))
+    {
+      gfc_error ("'%s' at %L has attributes specified outside its INTERFACE "
+                "body", sym->name, where);


I also wonder whether one should do:
-      gfc_error ("DIMENSION declaration for %s outside its INTERFACE body "
+      gfc_error ("DIMENSION specified for %s outside its INTERFACE body "

and analogously for

+      gfc_error ("ALLOCATABLE delaration outside of INTERFACE body at %L",


I leave it to you whether you change this wording.

Otherwise the patch looks OK. Thanks for the patch.

Tobias

PS: What is the plan for the next patch? Procedure pointers (part 1) or some in-between patch? I believe that http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-05/msg00301.html was almost ready for check in; some fixes such as COMMON one could do afterwards. (Though I would not be surprised if it turned out to be trivial to support COMMON.)