Re: [patch, fortran] pr21061 - gfortran ignores -Werror

[Brooks Moses <brooks dot moses at codesourcery dot com>]

Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> Attached is a revised and much simpler fix for PR fortran/21061 where
> -Werror was ignored. The attached patch makes sure that we exit(1)
> properly even for warnings.

I have a couple of belated question about this patch to error.c:

In the following code (gfc_warning, but gfc_warning_now is identical), 
it increments both errors and warnings when warnings_are_errors is true:

> > @@ -475,7 +475,12 @@ gfc_warning (const char *nocmsgid, ...)
> >
> >   va_start (argp, nocmsgid);
> >   if (buffer_flag == 0)
> > +  {
> >     warnings++;
> > +    if (warnings_are_errors)
> > +      errors++;
> > +  }

However, in gfc_notify_std, when it would normally produce a warning but 
warnings_are_errors is true, it only increments errors, not warnings:

> > -      if (warning)
> > +      if (warning && !warnings_are_errors)
> > 	warnings++;
> >       else
> > 	errors++;

Is this discrepancy intentional, or should one of these be changed to be 
consistent with the other?


Also, there is this hunk in gfc_notify_std:
> > @@ -518,14 +523,15 @@ gfc_notify_std (int std, const char *noc
> >  
> >    if (gfc_suppress_error)
> >      return warning ? SUCCESS : FAILURE;
> > -  
> > -  cur_error_buffer = warning ? &warning_buffer : &error_buffer;
> > +
> > +  cur_error_buffer = (warning && !warnings_are_errors)
> > +    ? &warning_buffer : &error_buffer;
> >    cur_error_buffer->flag = 1;
> >    cur_error_buffer->index = 0;
> >  

I don't follow why this is changed.  In gfc_warning, when warnings are 
treated as errors, they're still buffered into warning_buffer rather 
than into error_buffer.  Why buffer warnings into error_buffer here?

(In particular, I'm wondering if this has to do with lines 2606-2610 of 
match.c, which implement a gfc_notify_std_now sort of thing assuming 
that if gfc_notify_std has returned FAILURE that the result is in 
error_buffer, or whether there's a more global reason for it...?)

- Brooks