> I can change the error to something like
>
> "Intrinsic function NULL() cannot be an actual argument to
> STORAGE_SIZE because it returns a disassociated pointer”
I think that’d be better, indeed.
> No. This isn't a numbered constraint. I spent an hour or so
> tracing though parent namespac
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 05:34:14PM +0200, FX wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> + gfc_error ("%qs argument of %qs intrinsic at %L shall not be an "
> + "unallocated allocatable variable or a disassociated or "
> + "undefined pointer???,
>
> Given that we know explicitly that th
Hi Steve,
+ gfc_error ("%qs argument of %qs intrinsic at %L shall not be an "
+"unallocated allocatable variable or a disassociated or "
+"undefined pointer”,
Given that we know explicitly that the expr is NULL, wouldn’t it be nicer to
give only the relevant
Regression tested on trunk. OK to commit?
The patch shuold be self-explanatory.
2015-05-XX Steven G. Kargl
PR fortran/66043
* check.c (gfc_check_storage_size): Prevent the direct use of NULL()
in STORAGE_SIZE() reference.
2015-05-XX Steven G. Kargl
PR for
