This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch, fortran] PR31162 missing warning for real do-loops with implicit typed variables
- From: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- To: Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>
- Cc: Fortran List <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:19:38 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch, fortran] PR31162 missing warning for real do-loops with implicit typed variables
- References: <4672D801.80303@verizon.net>
:REVIEWMAIL:
Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> ! if (real_ok)
> ! return gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F95_DEL, "Obsolete: %s at %L should"
> ! " be integer", _(name_msgid), &expr->where);
>
This is not "Obsolete" but "Deleted"; the Fortran standard does not know
about "obsolete" only about "obsolescent" and "deleted". If you look in
Appendix B of the Fortran 95 standard, you find under "B.1 Deleted
features" the section "B.1.1 Real and double precision DO variables".
...
I just saw that gfortran always uses "Obsolete" for deleted features,
you may thus keep the "Obsolete". (However, I personally prefer
something like "Deleted:" or "Deleted feature:" everywhere.)
Additionally, instead of "Obsolete: %s at %L should be integer" (which
almost sounds as if it is obsolete to use integers), I would prefer
something like Obsolete/Deleted feature: "Real DO variable %s at %L".
Another reason for not using "should" is the following. For -std=f95 the
message is:
Error: Obsolete: Loop variable at (1) should be integer
for the error message "must" woulde be better than "should".
(real_ok is only false for data and io implied-do-loops, but not for
normal do loops.)
Ok for the trunk - as is or with the proposed changes. Thanks for fixing
the PR.
Tobias