On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 23:02, FX wrote:
>> What if the .mod file has been created by another compiler? Or do we have a
>> separate error message for that?
>
> For that, we get (only spelling was fixed by my patch, the message already
> existed):
>
>> Fatal Error: File 'foo.mod' opened at (1) is
> What if the .mod file has been created by another compiler? Or do we have a
> separate error message for that?
For that, we get (only spelling was fixed by my patch, the message already
existed):
> Fatal Error: File 'foo.mod' opened at (1) is not a GNU Fortran module file
I committed the pat
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:53, FX wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Attached patch was triggered by PR 52313
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52313), and tries to improve
> error messages for module reading. It fixes one spelling of "GFORTRAN" -->
> "GNU Fortran" and improves the error reportin
On Sat, Mar 03, 2012 at 10:53:24AM +0100, FX wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Attached patch was triggered by PR 52313
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52313), and tries to improve
> error messages for module reading. It fixes one spelling of "GFORTRAN" -->
> "GNU Fortran" and improves the er
Hi all,
Attached patch was triggered by PR 52313
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52313), and tries to improve error
messages for module reading. It fixes one spelling of "GFORTRAN" --> "GNU
Fortran" and improves the error reporting of old *unversioned* format from:
> Parse error w
