[Bug fortran/36457] preprocessing: option -idirafter undefined for fortran

[dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-09 19:29 ---
Fixed in trunk. Closing.


-- 

dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36457

[Bug fortran/36457] preprocessing: option -idirafter undefined for fortran

[dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-09 19:27 ---
Subject: Bug 36457

Author: dfranke
Date: Tue Dec  9 19:25:55 2008
New Revision: 142607

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142607
Log:
2008-12-09  Daniel Franke  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

PR fortran/36457
* lang.opt: Added option idirafter.
* cpp.h (gfc_cpp_add_include_path_after): New prototype.
* cpp.c (gfc_cpp_handle_option): Recognize and handle OPT_dirafter.
(gfc_cpp_add_include_path_after): New, adds user-defined search path
after any other paths.
* invoke.texi (idirafter): New.
(no-range-check): Fixed entry in option-index.


Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/cpp.c
trunk/gcc/fortran/cpp.h
trunk/gcc/fortran/invoke.texi
trunk/gcc/fortran/lang.opt


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36457

[Bug fortran/36457] preprocessing: option -idirafter undefined for fortran

[dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-04 07:44 ---
> Thoughts?

Make it known to the fortran frontend. 
I, finally, might find time to get this done this weekend ...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36457

[Bug fortran/36457] preprocessing: option -idirafter undefined for fortran

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-04 07:07 ---
> I can kill this warning if I invoke gfortran with -nostdinc.

But won't that break programs which use e.g. include "netcdf.inc" which is in
/usr/include/netcdf.inc ?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36457

[Bug fortran/36457] preprocessing: option -idirafter undefined for fortran

[billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-04 00:25 
---
I can kill this warning if I invoke gfortran with -nostdinc.  I would have
expected this to be the default.  After all, why include C source code or
headers in a Fortran file.

I will test this patch then ask on fortran@ 

--- cpp.c   2008-11-21 16:37:52.0 +1100
+++ cpp.c.new   2008-12-04 11:13:09.0 +1100
@@ -294,7 +294,7 @@
   gfc_cpp_option.dump_includes = 0;
   gfc_cpp_option.working_directory = -1;
   gfc_cpp_option.no_predefined = 0;
-  gfc_cpp_option.standard_include_paths = 1;
+  gfc_cpp_option.standard_include_paths = 0;
   gfc_cpp_option.verbose = 0;

   gfc_cpp_option.multilib = NULL;


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36457

[Bug fortran/36457] preprocessing: option -idirafter undefined for fortran

[billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-12-03 23:28 
---
This is causing testsuite failures and should be fixed.  The -idirafter appears
to be coming from the cpp section in specs file, while the warning is generated
in gcc/opts.c.  I can see several possible approaches:

1. Prune the warning with dejagnu 
2. Modify the cygwin specs file so -idirafter is not used for .F or .F90 file
(or when called from gfortran)
3. Modify the code to somewhere

Thoughts?


-- 

billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||billingd at gcc dot gnu dot
   ||org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-12-03 23:28:45
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36457