User account creation filtered due to spam.
There's a thread email@example.com started from emacs developers wishing that gfortran used a g77-compatible error message format, starting here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00751.html The friendly discussion has been a bit heated.
I don't think anybody disagrees with the fact that using an error format closer to the GNU standard would be nice. They usually are reasons behind standards.
On the other hand, there is broad agreement that the "standard GNU error format" offers very poor possibilities for the description of the error locations, especially for multiple-loci errors.
Some incomplete patch proposals here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00825.html and there: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-11/msg00017.html
Created attachment 12541 [details]
Proposed patch including testsuite changes
I attempted to send this to the list, but I'm not sure if it went through. Thus, posting it here; the following text had been included in the email:
Steve Kargl wrote:
> I have stated more than once THE TRIVIAL FIX DOES NOT WORK.
> It causes REGRESSIONS in the gfortran testsuite. If someone
> wants to fix whatever is causing the regressions, I'll be more
> than happy to commit the patch.
The attached only-slightly-less-trivial patch should fix the
regressions, although I have not yet tested it to confirm that.
Since my build machine is currently occupied with running CFD
calculations for my dissertation, would you mind regtesting it?
I will give it a spin
Commited to mainline as revision 118450. Maybe we want to include this into 4.2 before 4.2.0 is released? I think that would be the best thing to do; opinions?
I agree and already tested for Brooks on 4.2 last night.
I don't know why I assigned this to myself. Brooks has
already fixed this.
Patch posted for 4.2 but not yet approved:
Fixed on 4.2: svn 118628.