This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [Patch, Fortran] Parsing and checking of type-bound operators

From: Daniel Kraft <d at domob dot eu>
To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:21:40 +0200
Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] Parsing and checking of type-bound operators
References: <4A7D7FAC.7010206@domob.eu> <4A7FCC80.3060703@net-b.de> <4A7FFC6F.3070601@domob.eu>

Daniel Kraft wrote:

Tobias Burnus wrote:

On 08/08/2009 03:37 PM, Daniel Kraft wrote:

The locations errors by gfc_check_operator_interface are associated to
seem a little confused to me...  I don't think that messages like
"should be a FUNCTION/SUBROUTINE" should be at the procedure's
definition but rather where the procedure is defined as operator [...]
For type-bound operators, it's the same (as the same code is used) --
see the test-case for details.  I suggest to open a PR for this
(namely making error locations with operator interfaces more
consistent), but take it for now as this patch does it.

I concur. Please fill a PR.

I'll do so now.

Just for the record: This is PR 41023 now. It would be cool to hear some opinions on what we should aim for, then I volunteer to work on it.

Daniel

--
Done:  Arc-Bar-Cav-Ran-Rog-Sam-Tou-Val-Wiz
To go: Hea-Kni-Mon-Pri

References:
- [Patch, Fortran] Parsing and checking of type-bound operators
  - From: Daniel Kraft
- Re: [Patch, Fortran] Parsing and checking of type-bound operators
  - From: Tobias Burnus
- Re: [Patch, Fortran] Parsing and checking of type-bound operators
  - From: Daniel Kraft

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]