Ping! The patch is also ok with me. Regarding the wording I'd vote for Tobias' suggestion "NULL() intrinsic not permitted in data-transfer statement", but I'm also ok with the other variants.
Paul, please commit. Cheers, Janus 2013/12/1 Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de>: > Paul Richard Thomas wrote: >> >> This one is trivial. NULL(...) is simply out of context in a transfer >> statement. >> Bootstrapped and regtested on FC17/x86_64. OK for trunk and 4.8? > > > Looks good to me, except that I wonder whether the wording could be > improved: > "Invalid context for NULL () intrinsic at %L", > > For instance, something like "NULL() intrinsic not permitted in > data-transfer statement" or "Data transfer statement requires an associated > pointer" or "NULL() is not an associated pointer as required for an > data-transfer statement" or something like that, given that we know that the > context is a data transfer statement. The standard requires: "If an output > item is a pointer, it shall be associated with a target" (see just added > quote to the PR). > > Thus, the patch is fine after shortly pondering about the wording; but I am > also fine with your wording. > > Tobias > > >> 2013-11-30 Paul Thomas<pa...@gcc.gnu.org> >> >> PR fortran/34547 >> * resolve.c (resolve_transfer): EXPR_NULL is always in an >> invalid context in a transfer statement. >> >> 2013-11-30 Paul Thomas<pa...@gcc.gnu.org> >> >> PR fortran/34547 >> * gfortran.dg/null_5.f90 : Include new error. >> * gfortran.dg/null_6.f90 : Include new error.
