------- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-09-17 08:53 -------
Jakub Jelinek wrote (in PR 33439, but seemingly regarding this PR):
> Pedantically this is not a bug. If an omp sentinel doesn't have the desired
> form, it should be handled as a normal comment. As the preceeding line
> doesn't end with &, then !$omp& is not a valid omp sentinel (as !$omp needs to
> be followed by a space) and thus it is the same as say
> ! $ omp & something
> That said, perhaps we could issue some diagnostics, because it is likely
> a user error rather than intent.
As this PR shows, this user error happens easily, if one converts a fixed-form
into a free-form code. Thus I'm in favour of printing a warning or - as ifort
and sunf95 do - an error.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Last reconfirmed|2007-09-17 06:55:32 |2007-09-17 08:53:10
date| |
Summary|openmp invalid multi-thread |Diagnose "!$OMP&" as an
|runtime result (-ffree-form |error in free format unless
|only!) |it is a continuation line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33445
