[Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1631 bytes --]

For a code with an arithmetic IF, for example

program xx
implicit none
integer :: i
i = 0
if (i) 10,20,30
10 print*,"negative"
stop
20 print*,"zero"
stop
30 print*,"positive"
stop
end program xx

mingw gfortran 4.3.0 20061021 says

 In file xarithmetic_if.f90:5

if (i) 10,20,30
              1
Warning: Obsolete: arithmetic IF statement at (1)

According to the Fortran 95 Handbook the arithmetic IF is "obsolescent", not
"obsolete".

The Fortran 2003 standard lists the following features as "obsolescent" in
section B.2, "Obsolescent features".

5 (1) Arithmetic IF — use the IF statement (8.1.2.4) or IF construct (8.1.2).
6 (2) Shared DO termination and termination on a statement other than END DO or
CON7
TINUE — use an END DO or a CONTINUE statement for each DO statement.
8 (3) Alternate return — see B.2.1.
9 (4) Computed GO TO statement — see B.2.2.
10 (5) Statement functions — see B.2.3.
11 (6) DATA statements amongst executable statements — see B.2.4.
12 (7) Assumed length character functions — see B.2.5.
13 (8) Fixed form source — see B.2.6.
14 (9) CHARACTER* form of CHARACTER declaration — see B.2.7.

Gfortran should use the term "obsolescent" rather than "obsolete" for all of
these features. I have only looked at arithmetic IF.


-- 
           Summary: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com]

------- Comment #1 from vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com  2007-02-05 14:05 -------
Compiling the code above with

gfortran -std=f2003 

gives

 In file xarithmetic_if.f90:5

if (i) 10,20,30
              1
Error: Obsolete: arithmetic IF statement at (1)

which is incorrect, because the arithmetic IF is part of standard Fortran 2003
and 95.


-- 

vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|"obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"|"obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-05 16:25 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Compiling the code above with
> 
> gfortran -std=f2003 
> 
> gives
> 
>  In file xarithmetic_if.f90:5
> 
> if (i) 10,20,30
>               1
> Error: Obsolete: arithmetic IF statement at (1)
> 
> which is incorrect, because the arithmetic IF is part of standard Fortran 2003
> and 95.
> 

gfortran is correct.  See section B.2 of Fortran 2003.  I don't have
Fortran 95 handy, but I suspect that gfortran is correct for F95
too.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-07 02:10 -------
>From the dictionary:  obsolescent -> Going out of use; becoming obsolete; 

So this means its not obsolete yet, and thus still supported.

I will fix this.  Splitting hairs really, but what the heck.


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-02-07 02:10:57
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[patchapp at dberlin dot org]

------- Comment #4 from patchapp at dberlin dot org  2007-02-07 04:30 -------
Subject: Bug number PR30681

A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00597.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[patchapp at dberlin dot org]

------- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org  2007-02-19 06:30 -------
Subject: Bug number PR30681

A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01587.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-19 06:48 -------
Subject: Bug 30681

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Feb 19 06:48:07 2007
New Revision: 122124

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122124
Log:
2007-02-18  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/30681
        * options.c (gfc_init_options): Relax warning level for obsolescent.
        * match.c (match_arithmetic_if): Change to obsolescent from deleted.
        (gfc_match_if): Same.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/match.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/options.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-19 06:52 -------
Subject: Bug 30681

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Mon Feb 19 06:52:18 2007
New Revision: 122125

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122125
Log:
2007-02-18  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/30681
        * gfortran.dg/pr17229.f: Change "Obsolete" to "Obsolescent".

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr17229.f


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-23 18:17 -------
Subject: Bug 30681

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 23 18:16:54 2007
New Revision: 122267

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122267
Log:
2007-02-23  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/30681
        * options.c (set_default_std_flags): New function to consolidate
        setting the flags. Relax warning level for obsolescent.
        (gfc_init_options): Use new function.
        (gfc_handle_option): Use new function.
        * match.c (match_arithmetic_if): Change to obsolescent from deleted.
        (gfc_match_if): Same.

Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/fortran/match.c
    branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/fortran/options.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-23 18:20 -------
Subject: Bug 30681

Author: jvdelisle
Date: Fri Feb 23 18:20:01 2007
New Revision: 122269

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122269
Log:
2007-02-23  Jerry DeLisle  <jvdelisle@gcc.gnu.org>

        PR fortran/30681
        * gfortran.dg/pr17229.f: Change "Obsolete" to "Obsolescent".

Modified:
    branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
    branches/gcc-4_2-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr17229.f


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681

[Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-23 18:37 -------
Fixed on 4.2 and 4.3


-- 

jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30681