[Bug fortran/87233] Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard revision (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle --- Fixed now on gcc9, so closing.
[Bug fortran/87233] Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard revision (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233 --- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Mon Aug 5 00:47:41 2019 New Revision: 274104 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274104=gcc=rev Log: 2019-08-04 Jerry DeLisle Backport from trunk PR fortran/87233 * expr.c (check_restricted): Relax constraint C1279 which was removed from F2008 and above. * gfortran.dg/initialization_14.f90: Modify to now pass by removing two dg-error commands. Added comments. * gfortran.dg/initialization_30.f90: New test that includes the two tests removed above with the 'dg-options -std=f95'. Added: branches/gcc-9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/initialization_30.f90 Modified: branches/gcc-9-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog branches/gcc-9-branch/gcc/fortran/expr.c branches/gcc-9-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog branches/gcc-9-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/initialization_14.f90
[Bug fortran/87233] Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard revision (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233 --- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle --- Fixed on trunk. I am thinking backport this to enable gfortran 9 to not reject valid.
[Bug fortran/87233] Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard revision (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233 --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Sun Jul 14 22:52:58 2019 New Revision: 273484 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273484=gcc=rev Log: 2019-07-14 Jerry DeLisle PR fortran/87233 * expr.c (check_restricted): Relax constraint C1279 which was removed from F2008 and above. * gfortran.dg/initialization_14.f90: Modify to now pass by removing two dg-error commands. Added comments. * gfortran.dg/initialization_30.f90: New test that includes the two tests removed above with the 'dg-options -std=f95'. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/initialization_30.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/expr.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/initialization_14.f90
[Bug fortran/87233] Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard revision (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233 --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle --- Patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-07/msg00035.html
[Bug fortran/87233] Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard revision (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2018-11-18 Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #1) > The check is easy enough to delete: More important: does gfortran generate the right code if the error is deleted?
[Bug fortran/87233] Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard revision (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233 --- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #1) > > The check is easy enough to delete: > > --- snip --- > What happens with -std=f95 and -std=f2003? > > -- > steve Well obviously we dont have the hooks for f95 and f2003. AFAICT the code looks acceptable per my read of f2008. So if we want to provide different levels of diagnostics for the various version standards, I can add the hooks. It frustrates me since I feel like we are constantly chasing rabbits down the rabit holes with these things. It would be nice if people just would conform to the current standard, in this case it is more forgiving to to so.
[Bug fortran/87233] Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard revision (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #1)
> The check is easy enough to delete:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.c b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
> index c5bf822cd24..a8e6dd389b0 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/expr.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
> @@ -3073,19 +3073,6 @@ check_restricted (gfc_expr *e)
>sym = e->symtree->n.sym;
>t = false;
>
> - /* If a dummy argument appears in a context that is valid for a
> -restricted expression in an elemental procedure, it will have
> -already been simplified away once we get here. Therefore we
> -don't need to jump through hoops to distinguish valid from
> -invalid cases. */
> - if (sym->attr.dummy && sym->ns == gfc_current_ns
> - && sym->ns->proc_name && sym->ns->proc_name->attr.elemental)
> - {
> - gfc_error ("Dummy argument %qs not allowed in expression at %L",
> -sym->name, >where);
> - break;
> - }
> -
>if (sym->attr.optional)
> {
> gfc_error ("Dummy argument %qs at %L cannot be OPTIONAL",
What happens with -std=f95 and -std=f2003?
--
steve
[Bug fortran/87233] Constraint C1279 still followed after f2008 standard revision (?)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87233
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle ---
The check is easy enough to delete:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/expr.c b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
index c5bf822cd24..a8e6dd389b0 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/expr.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/expr.c
@@ -3073,19 +3073,6 @@ check_restricted (gfc_expr *e)
sym = e->symtree->n.sym;
t = false;
- /* If a dummy argument appears in a context that is valid for a
-restricted expression in an elemental procedure, it will have
-already been simplified away once we get here. Therefore we
-don't need to jump through hoops to distinguish valid from
-invalid cases. */
- if (sym->attr.dummy && sym->ns == gfc_current_ns
- && sym->ns->proc_name && sym->ns->proc_name->attr.elemental)
- {
- gfc_error ("Dummy argument %qs not allowed in expression at %L",
-sym->name, >where);
- break;
- }
-
if (sym->attr.optional)
{
gfc_error ("Dummy argument %qs at %L cannot be OPTIONAL",
