[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- I've assigned it to myself, with the understanding that it may take some time before I do anything about this. So, if anybody wants do do some work already, please go ahead :)
[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- From pr64273: Tobias Burnus 2014-12-11 16:29:56 UTC Follow up to PR44054 and PR53552. See also related bugs PR28662, PR62226, PR53934. There are two possibilities, either to use a real #pragma warning or to make it more Fortran-like and use !GCC$ warning directive See PR44054 and PR53552. Dominique d'Humieres 2014-12-11 16:40:45 UTC > There are two possibilities, either to use a real > #pragma warning > or to make it more Fortran-like and use > !GCC$ warning directive Yuck!-(I think there are a lot of really more important things to do. In any case choose the latter).
[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres --- *** Bug 64273 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=44054, ||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=64273 --- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1) > IMO implementing the diagnostic pragmas in gfortran will just be a waste of > time. Thus if someone want to close this PR as WONTFIX, I won't object! That sounds more like material for putting it in SUSPENDED; WONTFIX is more for a fundamental disagreement with it rather than just lack of interest, and WAITING is for when the reporter needs to provide more info.
[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Related to pr64273.
[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC|manu at gcc dot gnu.org| --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3) > > > IMO implementing the diagnostic pragmas in gfortran will just be a waste > > > of > > > time. Thus if someone want to close this PR as WONTFIX, I won't object! > > > > Why? Doesn't Fortran have pragmas? > > Yes indeed, but I don't see the use (interest) of diagnostic pragmas in > gfortran. > I am pretty sure that this PR will rot forever. Oh, well, that is up to Fortran devs and users. (I'm pretty sure many people said that about C/C++ diagnostic pragmas until they started to be widely use.)
[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > > IMO implementing the diagnostic pragmas in gfortran will just be a waste of > > time. Thus if someone want to close this PR as WONTFIX, I won't object! > > Why? Doesn't Fortran have pragmas? Yes indeed, but I don't see the use (interest) of diagnostic pragmas in gfortran. I am pretty sure that this PR will rot forever.
[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1) > IMO implementing the diagnostic pragmas in gfortran will just be a waste of > time. Thus if someone want to close this PR as WONTFIX, I won't object! Why? Doesn't Fortran have pragmas?
[Bug fortran/68289] Missing diagnostic pragmas
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68289 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed||2015-11-11 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres --- IMO implementing the diagnostic pragmas in gfortran will just be a waste of time. Thus if someone want to close this PR as WONTFIX, I won't object!
