[patch, fortran] PR30681 "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

Brooks Moses brooks.moses@codesourcery.com
Wed Feb 7 05:20:00 GMT 2007

Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> This patch changes the word "Obsolete" to "Obsolescent" in the relevant error 
> messages.  The behavior remains the same.  We throw an error instead of a 
> warning with -std=f95 or -std=f2003 to discourage the use of these features 
> which are in the "process of becoming obsolete"
> I will commit to 4.3 shortly and to 4.2 and 4.1 if no one objects.

I object.  :)

First, I would very strongly disagree with that behavior for obsolescent 
features.  Obsolescent features are _permitted_ by the standard; thus 
giving an error with -std=f95 is simply incorrect.  I would even 
disagree with having a warning for obsolescent features unless the user 
specifically and explicitly requested such.

With that said, however, these are in general DELETED features, not 
obsolescent ones, and your rewording is incorrect:

> ! 	      if (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F95_DEL, "Obsolescent: ASSIGNED "
>   				  "variable in FORMAT tag at %L", &e->where)
> !     gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F95_DEL, "Obsolescent: REAL DO loop iterator at %L",
>   		    &iter->var->where);
> ! 	gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F95_DEL, "Obsolescent: GOTO at %L jumps to END "
>   			"of construct at %L", &code->loc, &found->loc);

All of the error messages that you're rewording are controlled by 
GFC_STD_F95_DEL.  This flag signals deleted features, which are NOT 
permitted by the standard, and thus it is appropriate to throw an error.

There is one exception, though, which is a bug:
> !   if (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F95_DEL, "Obsolescent: arithmetic IF statement "
>   		      "at %C") == FAILURE)
> !       if (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F95_DEL, "Obsolescent: arithmetic IF "
>   			  "statement at %C") == FAILURE)

Arithmetic IF statements are indeed merely obsolescent.  Here, your 
rewording would be correct, but we should not be throwing this error, 
and especially should not be throwing it conditioned on GFC_STD_F95_DEL.

- Brooks

More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list