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

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

Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> Index: error.c
> ===================================================================
> --- error.c     (revision 118542)
> +++ error.c     (working copy)
> @@ -525,17 +525,18 @@
>    if (gfc_suppress_error)
>      return warning ? SUCCESS : FAILURE;
>  
> -  cur_error_buffer = (warning && !warnings_are_errors)
> -    ? &warning_buffer : &error_buffer;
> +  cur_error_buffer = warning ? &warning_buffer : &error_buffer;
>    cur_error_buffer->flag = 1;
>    cur_error_buffer->index = 0;
>  
>    if (buffer_flag == 0)
>      {
> -      if (warning && !warnings_are_errors)
> +      if (warning)
>         warnings++;
>        else
>         errors++;
> +      if (warning && warnings_are_errors)
> +       errors++;
>      }
>    va_start (argp, nocmsgid);
>    if (warning)
>
>
> Bernhard Fischer  <>
> 	* error.c (gfc_notify_std): Disregard warnings_are_errors when
> 	deciding which logbuffer to use. Also increment warnings if
> 	warnings_are_errors is set.
>
> Would that be ok?

It looks ok to me, but I can't approve it.

Also, on going through the list of affected functions in the patch I'm 
submitting, I noticed that if you're putting warnings in the 
warning_buffer regardless of warnings_are_errors, then 
error_warning_check needs to be updated to optionally increment errors.

> > (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...?)
>
> The initial reasoning from my part was to use the error buffer even for
> warnings if Werror was set. This was dropped for the sake of simplicity
> and since it was not really needed AFAICS.
>
> match.c lines 2599-2604 really look like they want gfc_error_now instead
> of the gfc_error, gfc_error_check combo. Or is there a subtile reason
> for the combo?

That's how I'd read it, too.  I don't see that the combo does anything.

- Brooks