From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 2E518385842B; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:56:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2E518385842B
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic:
 -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:56:28 +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: <bug-102145-4-vKFiMegnfR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102145-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102145-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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 <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:56:28 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102145

--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> -=
--
On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 07:34:17PM +0000, rimvydas.jas at gmail dot com wro=
te:
>=20
> > No, it is not.  The -fallow-argument-match option was given to
> > user to allow them to compile their broken code.  It was decided
> > to degrade a error into a warning with this option.  If you then
> > use an option that wants to PEDANTIC with respect to the requirements
> > of the Fortran 66, 77, 90, 95, 2003, 2008, and 2018 standard, then
> > you're going to get an error.
> Nobody said -fallow-argument-mismatch should work under say -std=3Df2008 =
(and it
> is OK if it doesn't).  Users complain about -std=3Dlegacy or -std=3Dgnu b=
ehavior
> and -pedantic acting like -pedantic-errors when it shouldn't.  All this d=
one
> was force users to make haste changes to keep code compiling while distur=
bing
> sometimes carefully crafted codes or simply splitting units into separate
> fortran souces so that compiler "does not see" this information.
>=20

Yes, it should behave like -pedantic-errors.  Why not ask the
people involved in deciding on -fallow-argument-mismatch behavior.
An argument mismatch was never permitted under any Fortran standard.
It was decided that gfortran would now issue an error if it detected
a mismatch.  -fallow-argument-mismatch was added to allow users,
who refuse to fix their code, the ability to downgrade the error
to a warning.  If -pedantic changes -fallow-argument-mismatch
back to an error, then don't use -pedantic.

And, no, the code was not "carefully crafted".  Code, which exploits
argument mismatch, has always been invalid Fortran.  It is time that
those codes are fixed.=