[Bug fortran/30929] New: -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[Bug fortran/30929] New: -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

Example:
...testsuite/gfortran.dg> gfortran -c -pedantic-errors c_by_val_4.f ; echo $?

c_by_val_4.f:14.22:

      CALL DOIT( %VAL( P ) ) ! { dg-warning "Extension: argument list fu
                     1
Warnung: Extension: argument list function at (1)
c_by_val_4.f:16.22:

      CALL DOIT( %VAL( P ) ) ! { dg-warning "Extension: argument list fu
                     1
Warnung: Extension: argument list function at (1)
0

Expected:
- Non-zero exit code
- "Error:" instead of "Warning:"

Have fun when fixing this as several "dg-do run" tests have -pedantic warnings,
-no-pedantic does not exist, and dg.exp contains:

    set DEFAULT_FFLAGS " -pedantic-errors"


-- 
           Summary: -pedantic-error  produced only warnings and no errors
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: diagnostic
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-27 15:33 -------
The same is true for -Werror.
Warnings still give an exit status code of zero.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-02-27 23:33 -------
> The same is true for -Werror.

I have to correct myself:
-Werror gives a non-zero exit status, but still writes "Warning:". I think
gfortran should follow gcc by changing also the label from "Warning:" to
"Error:" for -Werror.

-pedantic-errors seems to be difficult as it is hard to divide -Wall warnings
from -pedantic warnings. The easiest way is probably to imply -Wall by
-pedantic_errors (defined in flags.h as flag_pedantic_errors).


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|-pedantic-error  produced   |-pedantic-error produced
                   |only warnings and no errors |only warnings and no errors


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-05 17:05 -------
I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different, but... are you sure that
particular warning is a pedantic warning and not simply an unconditional
warning? AFAIK, pedantic-errors will turn only pedantic warnings into errors,
other warnings will still be warnings unless -Werror.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-05 18:08 -------
> I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different,

I think gfortran handles the warnings quite different, not that I know much
about the details of the C frontend.

> but... are you sure that particular warning is a pedantic warning and not 
> simply an unconditional warning?

primary.c:  if (x_hex && pedantic
primary.c-      && (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, "Extension: Hexadecimal "

This gives only an error with pedantic set (and -std=f95 or -std=f2003).

Otherwise, -pedantic is quite interwoven with the rest: options.c, e.g.:

  if (pedantic)
    {
      gfc_option.warn_ampersand = 1;
      gfc_option.warn_tabs = 0;
    }

No idea how to untangle -pedantic from -Wtabs or -Wampersand if
-pedantic-errors has been given, but -Werror has not.

Silently accepting and ignoring it, seems not to be the right way. The simple
solution is not to accept -pedantic-errors (and to point to -Werror) or to turn
on -Werror for -pedantic-errors. Both are rather easy solutions - and feel a
bit clumsy. It needs presumably quite a lot of work to support -pedantic-errors
properly.

First and simpler step should be to change "Warning:" into "Error:" for -Werror
to be in line with the C front end.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error produced only warnings and no errors

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-03-05 18:15 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> > I am not sure if gfortran diagnostics are different,
> 
> I think gfortran handles the warnings quite different, not that I know much
> about the details of the C frontend.
> 

Ah, OK. Then forget anything that I said.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|manu at gcc dot gnu dot org |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error and -Werror don't produce errors!

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-03-18 18:05:25
               date|                            |
            Summary|-pedantic-error produced    |-pedantic-error and -Werror
                   |only warnings and no errors |don't produce errors!


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929

[Bug fortran/30929] -pedantic-error and -Werror don't produce errors!

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-07-04 13:08 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> 
> No idea how to untangle -pedantic from -Wtabs or -Wampersand if
> -pedantic-errors has been given, but -Werror has not.
>

What gfortran should do is that if pedantic enables Wtabs, then the warnings
should be of the form:

if (pedantic && warn_tabs)
 pedantic("whatever");
else if (warn_tabs)
 warning("whatever");

pedantic() emits errors if -pedantic-errors, otherwise it emits warnings.
warning() emits errors if -Werror, otherwise it emits warnings.

I guess there would be similar functions in gfortran. (It would be great to
integrate the diagnostics machinery but making things work in a similar way is
already a step forward).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30929