public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
@ 2007-02-02 15:27 vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
2007-02-05 14:05 ` [Bug fortran/30681] " vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
` (9 more replies)
0 siblings, 10 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com @ 2007-02-02 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[-- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
@ 2007-02-05 14:05 ` vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
2007-02-05 16:25 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com @ 2007-02-05 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
2007-02-05 14:05 ` [Bug fortran/30681] " vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
@ 2007-02-05 16:25 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-07 2:11 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-05 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
2007-02-05 14:05 ` [Bug fortran/30681] " vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
2007-02-05 16:25 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-07 2:11 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-07 4:31 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-07 2:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-07 2:11 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-07 4:31 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2007-02-19 6:30 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: patchapp at dberlin dot org @ 2007-02-07 4:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-07 4:31 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
@ 2007-02-19 6:30 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2007-02-19 6:48 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: patchapp at dberlin dot org @ 2007-02-19 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-19 6:30 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
@ 2007-02-19 6:48 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-19 6:52 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-19 6:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-19 6:48 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-19 6:52 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-23 18:17 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-19 6:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-19 6:52 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-23 18:17 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-23 18:20 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-23 18:37 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-23 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-23 18:17 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-23 18:20 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-23 18:37 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-23 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/30681] "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete"
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-23 18:20 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-23 18:37 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-23 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-02-23 18:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-02-02 15:27 [Bug fortran/30681] New: "obsolescent" vs. "obsolete" vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
2007-02-05 14:05 ` [Bug fortran/30681] " vivekrao4 at yahoo dot com
2007-02-05 16:25 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-07 2:11 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-07 4:31 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2007-02-19 6:30 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2007-02-19 6:48 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-19 6:52 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-23 18:17 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-23 18:20 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-23 18:37 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).