[Bug fortran/41059] New: -fwhole-file and error messages

[Bug fortran/41059] New: -fwhole-file and error messages

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

At revision 150706 -fwhole-file change the errors messages in an unexpected
(non necessary?) way.
So far I have analyzed two cases:

(1) the order of messages is changed as in the following test

program main
  integer,parameter :: k = selected_int_kind (range (0_8) + 1)
  integer(kind=k), dimension(3) :: ik

  ik = (/ -1, 1, -3 /)
  call sub_ik(ik(1:3:2))
  if (any(ik /= (/ 3, 1, 2 /))) call abort
end program main

subroutine sub_ik(i)
  integer,parameter :: k = selected_int_kind (range (0_8) + 1)
  integer(kind=k), dimension(2) :: i
  if (i(1) /= -1) call abort
  if (i(2) /= -3) call abort
  i(1) = 3
  i(2) = 2
end subroutine sub_ik

The difference between wo/with -fwhole-file is:

--- int_no      2009-07-28 13:09:04.000000000 +0200
+++ int_wf      2009-07-28 13:09:19.000000000 +0200
@@ -8,11 +8,6 @@ internal_pack_3_db.f90:11.16:
   call sub_ik(ik(1:3:2))
                 1
 Error: Syntax error in argument list at (1)
-internal_pack_3_db.f90:10.2:
-
-  ik = (/ -1, 1, -3 /)
-  1
-Error: Incompatible ranks 0 and 1 in assignment at (1)
 internal_pack_3_db.f90:17.16:

   integer(kind=k), dimension(2) :: i
@@ -28,3 +23,8 @@ internal_pack_3_db.f90:21.3:
   i(2) = 2
    1
 Error: 'i' at (1) is not a variable
+internal_pack_3_db.f90:10.2:
+
+  ik = (/ -1, 1, -3 /)
+  1
+Error: Incompatible ranks 0 and 1 in assignment at (1)

This is a minor inconvenience when I compare the results of my test suite as it
give spurious differences.

(2) Some messages are repeated instead of different messages given without
-fwhole-file. This explain for instance the failure of
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/entry_17.f90:

@@ -3,10 +3,10 @@
   character(*) :: bar3 ! { dg-warning "Obsolescent feature" }
                       1
 Warning: Obsolescent feature: CHARACTER(*) function 'bar3' at (1)
-/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/entry_17.f90:27.57:
+/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/entry_17.f90:20:

-end function test3 ! { dg-warning "Obsolescent feature" }
-                                                         1
+function test3() ! { dg-warning "Obsolescent feature" }
+1
 Warning: Obsolescent feature: CHARACTER(*) function 'master.2.test3' at (1)
 /opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/entry_17.f90:20:

@@ -33,10 +33,10 @@ Warning: Extension: Function test5 at (1
 function test6() ! { dg-warning "Obsolescent feature|returning variables of
dif
 1
 Warning: Extension: Function test6 at (1) with entries returning variables of
different string lengths
-/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/entry_17.f90:55.57:
+/opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/entry_17.f90:48:

-end function test6 ! { dg-warning "Obsolescent feature" }
-                                                         1
+function test6() ! { dg-warning "Obsolescent feature|returning variables of
dif
+1
 Warning: Obsolescent feature: CHARACTER(*) function 'master.5.test6' at (1)
 /opt/gcc/_gcc_clean/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/entry_17.f90:48:

Note that -fwhole-file fixes pr37744 (see comment #5).


-- 
           Summary: -fwhole-file and error messages
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
 GCC build triplet: *-apple-darwin9
  GCC host triplet: *-apple-darwin9
GCC target triplet: *-apple-darwin9


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41059

[Bug fortran/41059] -fwhole-file and error messages

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-03-28 20:50 -------
Dear Dominiq,

Unfortunately, what you report here is a consequence of the way in which
-fwhole-file has to be implemented.  The order changes because of the need to
resolve called procedures and I can well believe that the number of error
messages might change, even though namespaces are tagged when they have been
resolved. I guess that we could tag every line for errors but this would need a
bigger change to error.c than I am prepared to embark on.

My inclination is WONTFIX but I would be happy to discuss.

Paul 


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41059

[Bug fortran/41059] -fwhole-file and error messages

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

------- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2010-03-30 17:13 -------
> ... . I guess that we could tag every line for errors but this would need a
> bigger change to error.c than I am prepared to embark on.

I understand that! Although there is no emergency to clean up the error
handling in gfortran, someday someone will have to do it, for instance to
remove the ICE after legitimate errors (see pr36192, pr37744, pr38568, and
pr43266).

In addition, if someday -fwhole-file becomes the default, the testsuite will
have to adjusted to handle the change in the type and/or place of the messages.

> My inclination is WONTFIX but I would be happy to discuss.

I would prefer to leave this pr open (could you confirm it?) until these issues
are resolved. This will probably not prevent duplicate reports, but at least it
will keep some memory of the problems.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41059

[Bug fortran/41059] -fwhole-file and error messages

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-29 08:11 -------
Close as WONTFIX as suggested by Dominique.

The trunk now uses -fwhole-file and some of the warning messages have been
fixed while others have been added as dg-warning. The commit was Rev.162491:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revision&revision=162491


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41059