> OK with the documentation change and with the re-named option. Please
> also update the name in the code.
changes made and committed as r214311
VandeVondele Joost wrote:
> >> So the negative version is -Wno-use-no-only? That sounds weird.
> > What about -Wuse-without-only?
>
> Would be fine with me. Approved with this change ?
That would be the patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-06/msg00114.html
> +Warn if a use statement has no
>> So the negative version is -Wno-use-no-only? That sounds weird.
> What about -Wuse-without-only?
Would be fine with me. Approved with this change ?
> So the negative version is -Wno-use-no-only? That sounds weird.
What about -Wuse-without-only?
I can also confirm that the test succeeds without the ' ! { dg-bogus "has no
ONLY qualifier" }'.
Dominique
On 18 August 2014 17:51, VandeVondele Joost
wrote:
> ping ?
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-06/msg00114.html
So the negative version is -Wno-use-no-only? That sounds weird.
Cheers,
Manuel.
ping ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2014-06/msg00114.html
>> This explicitly tests that no bogus error message is issued
>> for a use statement that has an only qualifier ?
>
>I don't see the need for '! { dg-bogus "has no ONLY qualifier" }'.
>AFAICT there is no warning emitted for this line (unless you add -Wall)
>and if some day it happens that an error
> This explicitly tests that no bogus error message is issued
> for a use statement that has an only qualifier ?
I don't see the need for '! { dg-bogus "has no ONLY qualifier" }'.
AFAICT there is no warning emitted for this line (unless you add -Wall)
and if some day it happens that an error/warni
Attached the reworked patch. The only change is that the warning is now not
part of -Wall, given the consensus on the list.
The patch has been bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. If
OK, please apply to trunk.
gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
2014-06-04 Joost VandeVondele
PR
> I think it is really weird if a coding style warning is included in -Wall.
Same here. It’s not a very commonly shared coding style, so I don’t think it
should be included in -Wall.
Other than that, I like the idea (but cannot review the patch).
FX
> What is the rationale of
>
> + SUBROUTINE S2
> + USE foo, ONLY: bar ! { dg-bogus "has no ONLY qualifier" }
> + END SUBROUTINE
This explicitly tests that no bogus error message is issued for a use statement
that has an only qualifier ?
> I think it is really weird if a coding style warning is included in -Wall.
I fully agree. In top of that the patch looks like a blind enforcement of this
coding style.
What is the rationale of
+ SUBROUTINE S2
+ USE foo, ONLY: bar ! { dg-bogus "has no ONLY qualifier" }
+ END SUBROUTINE
?
> I think it is really weird if a coding style warning is included in -Wall.
I have no strong opinion on this, I followed the -Wintrinsic-shadow example,
and I'm happy to change things.
Note however, that even the Fortran standard recommends the ONLY option for
example for intrinsic modules, t
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 08:03:45AM +, VandeVondele Joost wrote:
> +@item -Wuse-no-only
> +@opindex @code{Wuse-no-only}
> +@cindex warnings, use statements
> +@cindex intrinsic
> +Warn if a use statement has no only qualifier and thus implicitly imports
> +all public entities of the used module
14 matches
Mail list logo
