[Bug fortran/35015] missing cleanup-modules directive in testsuite/gfortran*

[rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #4 from rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com  2008-01-29 20:23 
---
Subject: Re:  missing cleanup-modules directive in
testsuite/gfortran*

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 08:15:23PM -, burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-29 20:15 ---
>> You can pass any *.[fF][9]*[05]* and .inc into this script, it will happily
>> scan for any un-cleaned mod. See top of the script for the files i initially
>> fed to it.
>
>Most (all?) .mod files which are left over come currently from
>gfortran.fortran-torture/, where dg-cleanup cannot be used.

Fair enough. We should thus apply the script to gcc/contrib/ (ok for
adding it?) and consequently close this as fixed.
thanks,


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35015

[Bug fortran/31588] gfortran should be able to output Makefile dependencies with -M* options

[rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #6 from rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com  2007-06-04 20:50 
---
Subject: Re:  gfortran should be able to output Makefile dependencies with -M*
options

On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 05:39:48PM -, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
wrote:
>
>
>--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-04 17:39 
>---
>(In reply to comment #4)
>> fx, are you still working on this?
>
>Not actively. It's probably not so hard, though: read the file, like we do with
>-fsyntax-only mode, and parse #file headers.

Yes, without looking i was thinking about for each file, populate a list
of provides/needs mods and emit them when a file is done.

>> yet another reason why "-M" as an alias for -J should be dropped and instead
>> proper -M dependency handling should be added is this:
>> 
>> $ echo end > foo.f90 && gfortran -o main  foo.f90 -v -M
>> Segmentation fault
>
>That's another one. File a new PR (it's probably a simple check that's missing
>in gfc_handle_module_path_options()).

I did not look whether it is calling strlen on NULL or another spot in
the option handling, but i will not look at the current meaning of -M,
so please feel free to file this if you think it's worth noting it.
Thanks,


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31588