------- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 12:40 -------
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > I think it dates back to punch cards;
> Yes, I've seen those. However, being born too late, I never had the chance to
> use them :)
I also saw them in some shelves at the physics department - but I also never
used them. And my first real encounter with Fortran was a quasi-object
orientated, free-form Fortran 95 program. And also Fortran 66 was already
replaced by Fortran 77 before my birth (at least in terms of the standard - no
idea when the first compilers became available). The interesting old-style
features I only learned through developing gfortran ;-)
> if (gfc_state_stack->state != COMP_DERIVED_CONTAINS)
> {
> + if (gfc_current_form == FORM_FIXED)
> + return MATCH_NO;
> gfc_error ("FINAL declaration at %C must be inside a derived type "
> "CONTAINS section");
> Ok to commit (after a regtest and with the test case from comment #0)?
I would add a linebreak before gfc_error to make it a bit more readable, but
otherwise it is OK. And of course you need to send the patch also to the
mailing lists.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43244
