------- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-21 10:02 -------
Created an attachment (id=15935)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15935&action=view)
Proposed test cases
Here's a set of test-cases (as diff) as I plan to fix this bug (dg-format may
not yet be correct, but the intended behaviour should be clearly visible):
1.) New warning flag -Wintrinsic-shadow (name can be changed if better
suggestions come up): Warn if a procedure is defined with the same name as an
intrinsic in the selected -std=*/-fall-intrinsics setting; the messages are as
in the comment above.
2.) I did remove the effect of -Wnonstd-intrinsic (deprecate this flag that is
ignored now?) in favour of always enabling checking for standardness of
intrinsics. The exact behaviour should be to treat each intrinsic not in the
selected standard as EXTERNAL and try linking to a user-defined one. If a
non-standard intrinsic appears inside an INTRINSIC declaration, this is a hard
error. -Wsurprising will warn when an intrinsic is treated as EXTERNAL because
of the standard settings. (Should we use -Wnonstd-intrinsic here? But this
would be a "surprising" change of this flag's meaning.)
Comments are welcome if I should change something in this plan or on the tests
themselves!
FYI, the intrinsic_shadow_X.f03 tests (that is, the -Wintrinsic-shadow
warnings) are already implemented, the standard-checking will come soon.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33141
