https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Nov 5 10:35:23 2016
New Revision: 241870
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=241870&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2016-11-05 Janus Weil
Manuel Lopez-Ibanez
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #14 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #13)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
> > I think you need to add a line
> >
> > ! { dg-options "-pedantic" }
> >
> > to element
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #13 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11)
> I think you need to add a line
>
> ! { dg-options "-pedantic" }
>
> to elemental_optional_args_6.f90 (untested).
I'd suggest to use -Wpedantic,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I have tested that the following patch fixes the failures
--- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_optional_args_6.f90
2012-06-18 21:04:16.0 +0200
+++ gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ele
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
I think you need to add a line
! { dg-options "-pedantic" }
to elemental_optional_args_6.f90 (untested).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Created attachment 37527 [details]
> patch
>
> The attached patch should take care of all cases mentioned above.
>
> Unfortunately it causes a testsuite failure of elemental_optional_args_6.f90
> an
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 37527
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37527&action=edit
patch
The attached patch should take care of all cases mentioned above.
Unfortunately it causes a te
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> Im sure there are more...
One more case that I just ran across by coincidence (from resolve.c):
if (warn_compare_reals)
{
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5)
> (In reply to janus from comment #4)
> > Is there a reason for this behavior?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#wnowarning
I see. So this is inten
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> I guess practically all occurrences of "gfc_warning (0, ..." need to be
> transformed, or are there cases where the zero is legitimate?
Most warnings don't have a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to janus from comment #4)
> This seems very inconsistent: All three calls involve an invalid flag, but
> the diagnostics is very different for each of them (it's particularly bad
> that the se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Btw, I noticed another loosely related issue concerning misspellings of the
warning flags:
$ gfortran -Wunused-labels test.f90
gfortran: error: unrecognized command line option ‘-Wunused-labels’
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #2)
> I think there must be a lot more cases of this:
Yes, those should be taken care of as well. I'll try to do that.
I guess practically all occurre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69495
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
16 matches
Mail list logo
