https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40165
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40165
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #12 from Domi
--- Comment #11 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 17:42 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> See comment #1 and #3. The standard explicitly states that a Fortran
> processor must "detect and report" the use of deleted features.
It must report them - but the standard does not tel
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 14:54 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> OTOH I can see where a program that has a lot of real do loops would be
> irritating. I think that the standard does not explicitly say issue four
> warnings as long as each is detected. I
--- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 07:34 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> This could backfire. Consider applications that make extensive use of computed
> GOTOs, PAUSE or any of the other deleted features. Shall we introduce flags
> for
> selectively enable/disab
--- Comment #8 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 06:51 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> OTOH I can see where a program that has a lot of real do loops would be
> irritating.[...] So I suggest we mark as an enhancement and when some one has
> time, we could implement a consoli
--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-05 01:59
---
This is not invalid and is a feature request. I do think that -w will silence
warnings. I do not see a need to treat this particular warning any differently
then all the rest of the legacy warnings we have. For e
--- Comment #6 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-04 20:19 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I would like to see an option to silence gfortran in this regard - having it
> as
> default warning is fine, but maybe some -Wno-deleted option could be added
> then?
Isn't this what -std
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 14:43 ---
I would like to see an option to silence gfortran in this regard - having it as
default warning is fine, but maybe some -Wno-deleted option could be added
then? Or like g95 and ifort have (gcc/g++ as well?) a fine tun
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-18 14:30 ---
What shall we do with this, gents?
A WONTFIX?
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40165
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-15 20:40 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > I disagree with you as does the F95 standard
>
> Sorry, I cannot find anywhere in the standard that one has to emit four
> warnings.
I quoted the relevant text
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-15 20:23 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I disagree with you as does the F95 standard
Sorry, I cannot find anywhere in the standard that one has to emit four
warnings. First, I think that one warning for a real loop variable is en
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-15 18:51 ---
I disagree with you as does the F95 standard (if I'm
not misreading the standard).
1.5 Conformance
(3) It contains the capability to detect and report the use within
a submitted program unit of an additional fo
13 matches
Mail list logo
