[PATCH] fortran: remove trailing exclamation mark from various diagnostics (PR fortran/79852)

[PATCH] fortran: remove trailing exclamation mark from various diagnostics (PR fortran/79852)

[David Malcolm]

PR fortran/79852 reports various Fortran diagnostics that have a trailing
exclamation mark in their messages.

Is there a Fortran-specific convention here?

Otherwise, this patch removes the trailing exclamation marks.

Successfully bootstrapped&regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.

OK for trunk? (either now in stage 4, or for next stage1?)


gcc/fortran/ChangeLog:
	PR fortran/79852
	* bbt.c (insert): Remove trailing exclamation mark from message.
	* decl.c (gfc_match_final_decl): Likewise.
	* dump-parse-tree.c (show_expr): Likewise.
	* module.c (gfc_use_module): Likewise.
	* primary.c (build_actual_constructor): Likewise.
	(gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor): Likewise.
---
 gcc/fortran/bbt.c             |  2 +-
 gcc/fortran/decl.c            |  2 +-
 gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c |  2 +-
 gcc/fortran/module.c          |  2 +-
 gcc/fortran/primary.c         | 12 ++++++------
 5 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gcc/fortran/bbt.c b/gcc/fortran/bbt.c
index 37b5dc3..5cf5ef5 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/bbt.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/bbt.c
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ insert (gfc_bbt *new_bbt, gfc_bbt *t, compare_fn compare)
 	t = rotate_left (t);
     }
   else /* if (c == 0)  */
-    gfc_internal_error("insert_bbt(): Duplicate key found!");
+    gfc_internal_error("insert_bbt(): Duplicate key found");
 
   return t;
 }
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/decl.c b/gcc/fortran/decl.c
index 52de1c1..93fadca 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/decl.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/decl.c
@@ -9950,7 +9950,7 @@ gfc_match_final_decl (void)
       for (f = block->f2k_derived->finalizers; f; f = f->next)
 	if (f->proc_sym == sym)
 	  {
-	    gfc_error ("%qs at %C is already defined as FINAL procedure!",
+	    gfc_error ("%qs at %C is already defined as FINAL procedure",
 		       name);
 	    return MATCH_ERROR;
 	  }
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c b/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
index 87a5304..ede599d 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/dump-parse-tree.c
@@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ show_expr (gfc_expr *p)
 
 	default:
 	  gfc_internal_error
-	    ("show_expr(): Bad intrinsic in expression!");
+	    ("show_expr(): Bad intrinsic in expression");
 	}
 
       show_expr (p->value.op.op1);
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/module.c b/gcc/fortran/module.c
index 5515fed..cc4e12f 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/module.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/module.c
@@ -6996,7 +6996,7 @@ gfc_use_module (gfc_use_list *module)
   for (p = gfc_state_stack; p; p = p->previous)
     if ((p->state == COMP_MODULE || p->state == COMP_SUBMODULE)
 	 && strcmp (p->sym->name, module_name) == 0)
-      gfc_fatal_error ("Can't USE the same %smodule we're building!",
+      gfc_fatal_error ("Can't USE the same %smodule we're building",
 		       p->state == COMP_SUBMODULE ? "sub" : "");
 
   init_pi_tree ();
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/primary.c b/gcc/fortran/primary.c
index d7fc6c4..7b5ac5f 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/primary.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/primary.c
@@ -2677,7 +2677,7 @@ build_actual_constructor (gfc_structure_ctor_component **comp_head,
 	  else if (!comp->attr.artificial)
 	    {
 	      gfc_error ("No initializer for component %qs given in the"
-			 " structure constructor at %C!", comp->name);
+			 " structure constructor at %C", comp->name);
 	      return false;
 	    }
 	}
@@ -2760,13 +2760,13 @@ gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor (gfc_expr *e, gfc_symbol *sym, gfc_expr **c
 	    {
 	      if (last_name)
 		gfc_error ("Component initializer without name after component"
-			   " named %s at %L!", last_name,
+			   " named %s at %L", last_name,
 			   actual->expr ? &actual->expr->where
 					: &gfc_current_locus);
 	      else
 		gfc_error ("Too many components in structure constructor at "
-			   "%L!", actual->expr ? &actual->expr->where
-					       : &gfc_current_locus);
+			   "%L", actual->expr ? &actual->expr->where
+					      : &gfc_current_locus);
 	      goto cleanup;
 	    }
 
@@ -2802,7 +2802,7 @@ gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor (gfc_expr *e, gfc_symbol *sym, gfc_expr **c
 	  if (!strcmp (comp_iter->name, comp_tail->name))
 	    {
 	      gfc_error ("Component %qs is initialized twice in the structure"
-			 " constructor at %L!", comp_tail->name,
+			 " constructor at %L", comp_tail->name,
 			 comp_tail->val ? &comp_tail->where
 					: &gfc_current_locus);
 	      goto cleanup;
@@ -2814,7 +2814,7 @@ gfc_convert_to_structure_constructor (gfc_expr *e, gfc_symbol *sym, gfc_expr **c
 	  && gfc_is_coindexed (comp_tail->val))
      	{
 	  gfc_error ("Coindexed expression to pointer component %qs in "
-		     "structure constructor at %L!", comp_tail->name,
+		     "structure constructor at %L", comp_tail->name,
 		     &comp_tail->where);
 	  goto cleanup;
 	}
-- 
1.8.5.3

Re: [PATCH] fortran: remove trailing exclamation mark from various diagnostics (PR fortran/79852)

[Jerry DeLisle]

On 03/14/2017 06:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> PR fortran/79852 reports various Fortran diagnostics that have a trailing
> exclamation mark in their messages.
> 
> Is there a Fortran-specific convention here?
> 

No reason at all.
> Otherwise, this patch removes the trailing exclamation marks.
> 
> Successfully bootstrapped&regrtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> 
> OK for trunk? (either now in stage 4, or for next stage1?)
> 

Yes, OK.

Thanks for patch.

Jerry

Re: [PATCH] fortran: remove trailing exclamation mark from various diagnostics (PR fortran/79852)

[Steve Kargl]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:35:50PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> On 03/14/2017 06:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > PR fortran/79852 reports various Fortran diagnostics that have a trailing
> > exclamation mark in their messages.
> > 
> > Is there a Fortran-specific convention here?
> > 
> 
> No reason at all.

One occurs in a gfc_internal_error() and if we hit that then
there is a MAJOR fly in the ointment.  An exclamation is
probably appropriate;  Oh, and I have triggered that very
error.  Another appears in a gcc_fatal_error().  If a user
hits that, then an exclamation is merited in that the user's
code is so poorly written one can only exclaim.

-- 
Steve
20161221 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbCHE-hONow

Re: [PATCH] fortran: remove trailing exclamation mark from various diagnostics (PR fortran/79852)

[Jerry DeLisle]

On 03/14/2017 10:47 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:35:50PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>> On 03/14/2017 06:01 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> PR fortran/79852 reports various Fortran diagnostics that have a trailing
>>> exclamation mark in their messages.
>>>
>>> Is there a Fortran-specific convention here?
>>>
>>
>> No reason at all.
> 
> One occurs in a gfc_internal_error() and if we hit that then
> there is a MAJOR fly in the ointment.  An exclamation is
> probably appropriate;  Oh, and I have triggered that very
> error.  Another appears in a gcc_fatal_error().  If a user
> hits that, then an exclamation is merited in that the user's
> code is so poorly written one can only exclaim.
> 

maybe instead of exclamation point we should do

...., are you serious?

;)

Jerry