On 05/05/2013 05:47 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 10:25:19PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>> On 05/04/2013 06:30 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 05:13:51PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> CASE_SEPARATORS: /* Not a repeat count. */
>>>> case EOF:
>>>> + case '!':
>>>
>>> if (c == '!')
>>> gfc_warning("GNU Fortran extension: accepting a possibly "
>>> "corrupted namelist");
>>
>> --- SNIP ---
>>
>>> I would prefer that gfortran issues an error.
>>> Issuing a warning is acceptable.
>>> Patch as is not OK IMHO.
>>>
>>> PS: A vendor extension should be documented in the manual.
>>>
>>
>> I don't see much point in issuing a warning if we accept it.
>
> Point 1. If the standard requires a valid separator before !
> then gfortran should complain about the nonconforming
> namelist. Silently violating the standard just seems
> wrong to me.
>
> Point 2. By issuing the warning, the user will be alerted to the
> nonconforming namelist and may then be motivated to
> fix the problem for portability.
>
>> I can just as
>> easily make it an error with something like "A value separator is required
>> before a namelist comment" and be done with trying to second guess whether
>> someone is using namelists right or not.
>
> Issuing an error is my preference. Issuing a warning is also
> acceptable. Silently aceepting the code seems wrong. Do we
> know what other compilers do?
>
All,
Just to clarify, the issue is not a missing blank, its really a missing valid
separator which can be any one of ' ', ',', ';', '/', '\n', '\r' .
Jerry
