From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6FC0E3861916; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 16:51:13 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6FC0E3861916 From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 16:51:13 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P5 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 16:51:13 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102145 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl -= -- On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 02:14:26PM +0000, ripero84 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102145 >=20 > --- Comment #2 from ripero84 at gmail dot com --- > 1) The gfortran manual has its own entries for -pedantic and -pedantic-er= rors: >=20 Seems I owe you an apology. I failed to check the gfortran manual as I assumed these options where inherited from gcc general option pool, and thus, documented in the gcc manual. (option descriptions removed) > 2) This answers part of my issue: the behaviour is indeed > documented, just in a way that has proved confusing to me. Well, there are lots of things that gfortran does that I find confusing, and I've contributed to some of it. ;) > It think that a more accurate description > would start with:=20 >=20 > -pedantic: Issue warnings for some uses of extensions to Fortran, raise > otherwise warnings to errors for others. Not all extensions will raise > warnings or errors. >=20 > which sounds bad. Yes, it sounds bad, but at least reflects reality. -pedantic is not really pedantic. > 3) If this is the intended behaviour I can propose some tweaks > to the documentation, but as I said first I would like to have > a confirmation (ideally by the person who set up the interaction > between -pedantic and -fallow-argument-mismatch) that this is > really intended behaviour, not accidental. You would need to ping Thomas about the intended behavior. >=20 > 4) Apologies for not going into the C discussion, my C is limited, > No apology needed given gfortran's manual documents (badly?) these options. Given the lack of volunteers to maintain=20 gfortran at the moment, the best path forward may be an attempt to clarify the option descriptions. After years of contributing to gfortran, I have come to the conclusion that all extensions should require options to permit them. -std=3Dgnu would activate the options; while,=20 any other -std=3D... would de-active all of the extensions and issue errors. But, that ship has sailed.=