This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR35203 - reject dummies with VALUE + OPTIONAL
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Tobias Schlüter" <Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>
- Cc: "Tobias Burnus" <tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:56:13 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR35203 - reject dummies with VALUE + OPTIONAL
- References: <20080326212829.GA9242@physik.fu-berlin.de> <47EB7B65.1050700@physik.uni-muenchen.de>
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Tobias Schlüter
<Tobias.Schlueter@physik.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
> Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> We have sorry () for this purpose (known implementation limitations).
> >
> > Thanks! I was not aware of that function!
> >
> > Tobias Schlüterwrote:
> >> Please don't use gfc_error for shortcomings in the compiler.
> > Agreed. How about the following patch?
>
> Is it possible to print a locus with sorry? Otherwise, I think
> gfc_internal_error would be preferable. After all, the user will have
> to change his program. I thought we had something for this purpose,
> like gfc_unimplemented, but I couldn't find it.
Yes, sorry () takes the same diagnostic formats as error () and warning ().
Richard.