Re: [PATCH, v4] Fortran: restrictions on integer arguments to SYSTEM_CLOCK [PR112609]

[Mikael Morin <morin-mikael@orange.fr>]

Le 22/11/2023 à 21:36, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
> Hi Mikael!
> 
> On 11/22/23 10:36, Mikael Morin wrote:
>> (...)
>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/error.cc b/gcc/fortran/error.cc
>>> index 2ac51e95e4d..be715b50469 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/fortran/error.cc
>>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/error.cc
>>> @@ -980,7 +980,11 @@ char const*
>>>  notify_std_msg(int std)
>>>  {
>>>
>>> -  if (std & GFC_STD_F2018_DEL)
>>> +  if (std & GFC_STD_F2023_DEL)
>>> +    return _("Fortran 2023 deleted feature:");
>>
>> As there are officially no deleted feature in f2023, maybe use a
>> slightly different wording?  Say "Not allowed in fortran 2023" or
>> "forbidden in Fortran 2023" or similar?
>>
>>> +  else if (std & GFC_STD_F2023)
>>> +    return _("Fortran 2023:");
>>> +  else if (std & GFC_STD_F2018_DEL)
>>>      return _("Fortran 2018 deleted feature:");
>>>    else if (std & GFC_STD_F2018_OBS)
>>>      return _("Fortran 2018 obsolescent feature:");
> 
> I skimmed over existing error messages, and since "forbidden" did
> not show up and since "Not allowed" exists but not at the beginning
> of a message, I found that
> 
> "Prohibited in Fortran 2023"
> 
> appeared to be a good alternative.
> 
> Not being a native speaker, I hope that someone speaks up if this
> is not appropriate.  And since I do not explicitly verify that part
> in the testcase, it can be changed.
> 
>>> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/libgfortran.h b/gcc/fortran/libgfortran.h
>>> index bdddb317ab0..af7a170c2b1 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/fortran/libgfortran.h
>>> +++ b/gcc/fortran/libgfortran.h
>>> @@ -19,9 +19,10 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
>>>
>>>
>>>  /* Flags to specify which standard/extension contains a feature.
>>> -   Note that no features were obsoleted nor deleted in F2003 nor in
>>> F2023.
>>> +   Note that no features were obsoleted nor deleted in F2003.
>>
>> I think we can add a comment that F2023 has no deleted feature, but some
>> more stringent restrictions in f2023 forbid some previously valid code.
>>
>>>     Please remember to keep those definitions in sync with
>>>     gfortran.texi.  */
>>> +#define GFC_STD_F2023_DEL    (1<<13)    /* Deleted in F2023.  */
>>>  #define GFC_STD_F2023        (1<<12)    /* New in F2023.  */
>>>  #define GFC_STD_F2018_DEL    (1<<11)    /* Deleted in F2018.  */
>>>  #define GFC_STD_F2018_OBS    (1<<10)    /* Obsolescent in F2018.  */
>>> @@ -41,12 +42,13 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3.  If not see
>>>   * are allowed with a certain -std option.  */
>>>  #define GFC_STD_OPT_F95        (GFC_STD_F77 | GFC_STD_F95 |
>>> GFC_STD_F95_OBS  \
>>>                  | GFC_STD_F2008_OBS | GFC_STD_F2018_OBS \
>>> -                | GFC_STD_F2018_DEL)
>>> +                | GFC_STD_F2018_DEL | GFC_STD_F2023_DEL)
>>>  #define GFC_STD_OPT_F03        (GFC_STD_OPT_F95 | GFC_STD_F2003)
>>>  #define GFC_STD_OPT_F08        (GFC_STD_OPT_F03 | GFC_STD_F2008)
>>>  #define GFC_STD_OPT_F18        ((GFC_STD_OPT_F08 | GFC_STD_F2018) \
>>>                  & (~GFC_STD_F2018_DEL))
>> F03, F08 and F18 should have GFC_STD_F2023_DEL (and also F03 and F08
>> should have GFC_STD_F2018_DEL).
> 
> Well, these macros do an incremental bitwise-or, so the bit representing
> GFC_STD_F2023_DEL is included everywhere.  I also ran the testcases with
> different -std= options to check.
> 
Ah, yes.  I confused the GFC_STD_OPT* values with the GFC_STD_* ones.

>> OK with this fixed (and the previous comments as you wish), if Steve has
>> no more comments.
>>
>> Thanks for the patch.
>>
>>
> 
> If there are no further comments, I will commit once I am able to
> fully build again with --disable-bootstrap and -march=native ...
> 
> Thanks,
> Harald
> 
Thanks again.