From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31673 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2007 01:04:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 31641 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2007 01:04:21 -0000 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 01:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20071212010421.31640.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/29471] Warn with -std=f95/f2003 when BOZ is used at invalid places In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg01033.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #15 from jkrahn at nc dot rr dot com 2007-12-12 01:04 ------- Subject: Re: Warn with -std=f95/f2003 when BOZ is used at invalid places burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: ... >> Maybe there should be a "-f[no-]boz-range-check" to exclude range errors just >> for the BOZ case. > I think -fno-range-check should be enough for both, shouldn't it? My feeling is that BOZ range errors will occur often due to a poorly designed spec, but that other range errors may really be bugs. Alternatively, it might be good to a define BOZ mode flag, especially since gfortran already supports a non-standard extension, and because the vague standard means that there will be differences among compilers. > >> F2008 draft, it re-defines B/O/Z literals, named BITS instead of BOZ. > That part got dropped, see 13 August at: > http://www.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/ > Well, I hope that they at least update the BOZ specification. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29471