[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-05 17:05 ---
I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different, but... are you sure that
particular warning is a pedantic warning and not simply an unconditional
warning? AFAIK, pedantic-errors will turn only pedantic warnings into errors,
other warnings will still be warnings unless -Werror.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||manu at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-05 18:08 ---
 I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different,

I think gfortran handles the warnings quite different, not that I know much
about the details of the C frontend.

 but... are you sure that particular warning is a pedantic warning and not 
 simply an unconditional warning?

primary.c:  if (x_hex  pedantic
primary.c-   (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, Extension: Hexadecimal 

This gives only an error with pedantic set (and -std=f95 or -std=f2003).

Otherwise, -pedantic is quite interwoven with the rest: options.c, e.g.:

  if (pedantic)
{
  gfc_option.warn_ampersand = 1;
  gfc_option.warn_tabs = 0;
}

No idea how to untangle -pedantic from -Wtabs or -Wampersand if
-pedantic-errors has been given, but -Werror has not.

Silently accepting and ignoring it, seems not to be the right way. The simple
solution is not to accept -pedantic-errors (and to point to -Werror) or to turn
on -Werror for -pedantic-errors. Both are rather easy solutions - and feel a
bit clumsy. It needs presumably quite a lot of work to support -pedantic-errors
properly.

First and simpler step should be to change Warning: into Error: for -Werror
to be in line with the C front end.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-05 18:15 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
  I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different,
 
 I think gfortran handles the warnings quite different, not that I know much
 about the details of the C frontend.
 

Ah, OK. Then forget anything that I said.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|manu at gcc dot gnu dot org |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-27 15:33 ---
The same is true for -Werror.
Warnings still give an exit status code of zero.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-27 23:33 ---
 The same is true for -Werror.

I have to correct myself:
-Werror gives a non-zero exit status, but still writes Warning:. I think
gfortran should follow gcc by changing also the label from Warning: to
Error: for -Werror.

-pedantic-errors seems to be difficult as it is hard to divide -Wall warnings
from -pedantic warnings. The easiest way is probably to imply -Wall by
-pedantic_errors (defined in flags.h as flag_pedantic_errors).


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|-pedantic-error  produced   |-pedantic-error produced
   |only warnings and no errors |only warnings and no errors


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929