On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> after the dicsussion on c.l.f, it become clear that passing a DO loop
>> variable to an INTENT(OUT) or INTENT(INOUT) dummy argument is an error.
>> The attached patch throws an error for both cases.
But should we really isse an error for INTENT(INOUT)? IMHO a warning
suffices, with maybe an error only for strict (i.e. non-GNU) standard
settings.
>> I chose to issue the errors as a front-end pass because we cannot check
>> for formal arguments during parsing (where the other checks are
>> implemented).
>>
>> Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
>
>
> Ping ** 1.4285 ?
You don't have to list do_list twice in the ChangeLog, you probably
wanted one of those to be do_level ;-)
>> + do_list = XNEWVEC(gfc_code *, do_size);
Taste nit: Why not just toss do_list, do_level, and do_size around as
a function argument, instead of making them global variable? Just
define a struct containing them and pass it around via the "data"
argument for gfc_code_walker should work, I think.
IMHO names like "do_warn" and "do_list" are not very descriptive, if
not to say confusing. do_* names are used elsewhere in the compiler
for functions that perform ("do") a task, whereas your do_* functions
are for the Fortran DO construct. I'd prefer different names.
>> + to an INTENt(OUT) or INTENT(INOUT) dummy variable. */
s/INTENt/INTENT/
>> + /* Withot a formal arglist, there is only unknown INTENT,
s/Withot/Without/
>> + for (i=0; i<do_level; i++)
for (i = 0; i < do_level; i++)
>> + "inside loop beginning at %L as INTENT(OUT) "
Extraneous space after loop.
How do you handle OPTIONAL args?
Ciao!
Steven
