* [Bug fortran/38444] poor error message
2008-12-08 14:30 [Bug fortran/38444] New: poor error message jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2008-12-08 18:25 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-08 18:41 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-08 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-08 18:24 -------
Yeah, this has always bothered me. I typically use -fmax-errors=1 when
developing new code because of the run-on errors for simple mistakes.
This fixes the excessive errors in this case.
Index: symbol.c
===================================================================
--- symbol.c (revision 142481)
+++ symbol.c (working copy)
@@ -1559,7 +1559,8 @@ gfc_add_type (gfc_symbol *sym, gfc_types
|| gfc_notification_std (GFC_STD_GNU) == ERROR
|| pedantic)
{
- gfc_error (msg, sym->name, where, gfc_basic_typename (sym->ts.type));
+ gfc_fatal_error (msg, sym->name, where,
+ gfc_basic_typename (sym->ts.type));
return FAILURE;
}
if (gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, msg, sym->name, where,
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38444
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/38444] poor error message
2008-12-08 14:30 [Bug fortran/38444] New: poor error message jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2008-12-08 18:25 ` [Bug fortran/38444] " kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-08 18:41 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2008-12-08 19:33 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-29 8:31 ` [Bug fortran/38444] Poor recovery from error fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk @ 2008-12-08 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-12-08 18:39 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> - gfc_error (msg, sym->name, where, gfc_basic_typename (sym->ts.type));
> + gfc_fatal_error (msg, sym->name, where,
> + gfc_basic_typename (sym->ts.type));
That produces too few error messages. I.e.
IMPLICIT NONE
INTEGER :: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,a
a=0 ; b=0 ; c=0 ; d=0 ; e=0 ; f=0 ; g=0 ; h=0; i=0
END
should produce (like NAG f95, ifort) two errors only.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38444
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38444] poor error message
2008-12-08 14:30 [Bug fortran/38444] New: poor error message jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
2008-12-08 18:25 ` [Bug fortran/38444] " kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-08 18:41 ` jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
@ 2008-12-08 19:33 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-03-29 8:31 ` [Bug fortran/38444] Poor recovery from error fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-08 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-08 19:31 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > - gfc_error (msg, sym->name, where, gfc_basic_typename (sym->ts.type));
> > + gfc_fatal_error (msg, sym->name, where,
> > + gfc_basic_typename (sym->ts.type));
>
> That produces too few error messages. I.e.
>
> IMPLICIT NONE
> INTEGER :: a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,a
> a=0 ; b=0 ; c=0 ; d=0 ; e=0 ; f=0 ; g=0 ; h=0; i=0
> END
>
> should produce (like NAG f95, ifort) two errors only.
>
Unfortunately, the first error causes the entire line to
be rejected. Thus, all your variables are implicitly typed
when gfortran tries to continue with processing the file.
AFAIK, gfortran cannot accept a partially correct specification
statement.
If you fix the fatal error, you'll then see the second error.
So, you can view my patch as an all-or-nothing solution.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38444
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/38444] Poor recovery from error
2008-12-08 14:30 [Bug fortran/38444] New: poor error message jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-08 19:33 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-03-29 8:31 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
3 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-03-29 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |error-recovery
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-03-29 08:30:49
date| |
Summary|poor error message |Poor recovery from error
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38444
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread