[Patch, Fortran] PR 85841: [F2018] reject deleted features

[Steve Kargl]

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 09:44:47PM +0200, Janus Weil wrote:
> 
> >> The patch still regtests cleanly. Ok for trunk?
> >
> > Patch looks good to me.  The only thing that worries me is
> > whether the patch will cause the SPEC benchmark to throw
> > an error or warning that it did not before.  As I don't have
> > SPEC benchmark and it cost $$$, I'm not going to let it
> > bother too much.
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have access to SPEC either. Is anyone in a
> position to check this?

We'll find out evidently as one of the C/C++ developers run SPEC.

> If it is indeed a problem, I could remove the warning for the F2018
> deleted features with default flags (-std=gnu). However, I'd only like
> to do that if it's really necessary.

I would rather see the warnings to encourage users to fix
their codes.  If they don't want to see the warnings, they
can use -w.

> >> Btw, with the arrival of the F2018 standard, I wonder whether it
> >> actually makes sense to keep the option -std=f2008ts, or to remove it
> >> in favor of -std=f2018, since the two Technical Specifications covered
> >> by this flag are now part of F2018 (and pretty much the main part!).
> >> Any opinions on this?
> >
> > I think that f2008ts can go away.  We may need to do this
> > in two step as some users may have f2008ts hardcoded in
> > Makefiles.  Probably, issue warning for -std=2008ts and
> > map it to -std=2018 for a brief period (3 to 6 months?)
> > and then finally remove it.
> 
> Yes, I agree that it would be a good idea to keep -std=f2008ts as an
> alias for f2018 for a while (possibly until the next release, 9.0),
> and document is as deprecated. I can take care of removing the
> GFC_STD_F2008_TS macro in a follow-up patch.

Sounds good to me.

> Actually there is one other thing I do not like about my previous
> patch: The duplication of GFC_STD_* flags in gfc_match_stopcode. To
> get rid of this, I'm introducing additional macros in libgfortran.h,
> see new patch in the attachment. I hope you agree that this is an
> improvement. (Again: Regtests cleanly.)

Again, looks good.  Thanks for doing a boring janitor task of
cleaning up loose ends.  Welcome back to gfortran development.
Please stay away, we can use the help. :-)

-- 
steve