https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
--- Comment #9 from Walter Spector ---
It appears that Lfortran issues a message for this case. See:
https://github.com/j3-fortran/fortran_proposals/issues/83#issuecomment-1906266587
in C:
int x = 3; // statically allocated
void fn () {
int i=3; // stack allocated
}
Walter
-Original Message-
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
Sent: Jan 21, 2024 9:43 AM
To:
Subject: [Bug fortran/57360] Implement a warning for implied save
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Upon some additional thinking, I wonder how useful this will be compared
to the possible volume of warning messages from modern Fortran. Consider
this code:
module foo
integer :: j = 2
type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
--- Comment #5 from Walter Spector ---
IMHO this should be a "surprising" warning when -Wsurprising is specified.
The message should suggest adding an explicit SAVE attribute to make the code
clear.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57360
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
10 matches
Mail list logo
