From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-491676-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 129258 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2015 19:10:52 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 129186 invoked by uid 48); 7 Jul 2015 19:10:48 -0000
From: "casey.webster at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/56520] Syntax error causes misleading message: "Invalid character in name"
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 19:10:00 -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: 4.7.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: casey.webster at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-56520-4-lfHdn1GeIc@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-56520-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-56520-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00566.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520

--- Comment #7 from Casey Webster <casey.webster at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:23:17PM +0000, casey.webster at gmail dot com
> wrote:
> > 
> > Also, while I'll agree that "Unclassifiable statement" is better
> > than "Invalid character in name", it would be nicer to see
> > "Unbalanced parenthesis".
> > 
> 
> I'm sorry that gfortran does not meet your needs.  But, given
> how gfortran's matchers work, I doubt that anyone will produce
> a patch to do what you want.  I could be wrong.  Maybe someone
> will take up the challenge.
> 
> The patch I developed and committed specifically addresses a
> problem where the error message and the locus to which it
> pointed are simply wrong.  In 'c = exp(+a))', the old error
> message pointed to '+', which is a valid token in a valid
> expression.

Understood.  In this case would it be proper to request the other bug I filed
be un-marked as a duplicate of this one so this one can be resolved and the
other can still be fodder for someone with enough spare time and desire to look
into it?  Thanks for your patch btw, I only complained here since my bug was
duped to this one.