This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, Fortran] Optionally suppress no-automatic overwrites recursive warning - for approval
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Tobias Burnus <tobias at codesourcery dot com>, Mark Eggleston <mark dot eggleston at codethink dot co dot uk>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, fortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 07:22:26 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, Fortran] Optionally suppress no-automatic overwrites recursive warning - for approval
- References: <5757e425-1980-f148-b870-6d93cfc41916@codethink.co.uk> <1a2484a7-4157-1639-cb3d-ec8494d05d9e@codesourcery.com>
On 10/25/19 2:35 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 9/26/19 10:45 AM, Mark Eggleston wrote:
>> Original thread starts here
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01185.html
>> OK to commit?
>
> As Steve, I am not really happy about adding yet another option and
> especially not about legacy features. On the other hand, I see that
> legacy code is still used.
>
> Having said this, the patch is OK from my side.
>
> Tobias
>
> PS: I was also not that happy about the BOZ changes by Steve, which
> broke code here – but, fortunately, adding int( ,kind=) around it was
> sufficient and that code was supposed to be F2003 standard conforming.
> I could ping the authors and is now fixed. Still, I wonder how much code
> broke due to that change; code is not that simple to fix. – But, in
> general, I am very much in favour in having valid Fortran 2018 code (can
> be fixed form, old and use old features, that's fine).
So across Fedora the BOZ stuff tripped 2-3 packages. In comparison the
function argument stuff broke 30-40 packages, many of which still don't
build without -fallow-argument-mismatch.
jeff