[Bug fortran/60751] New: Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[Bug fortran/60751] New: Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[w6ws at earthlink dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

            Bug ID: 60751
           Summary: Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: w6ws at earthlink dot net

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[w6ws at earthlink dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

--- Comment #1 from Walter Spector <w6ws at earthlink dot net> ---
Simple test case:

program extracomma
  implicit none

  write (*,*), 1, 2, 3
end program

This compiles without error.

I notice that if I compile with -std=f95, it does diagnose this as a GNU
Extension.  My thoughts are that a warning message should be issued, rather
than quietly accepting the extension by default.

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[anlauf at gmx dot de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |anlauf at gmx dot de

--- Comment #2 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> ---
gfortran is quite in line with other compilers.  ifort is also quiet by
default.
However,

% gfc-trunk prxxx.f90 -std=f2008
prxxx.f90:4.13:

  write (*,*), 1, 2, 3
             1
Error: GNU Extension: Comma before i/o item list at (1)

% ifort prxxx.f90 -stand f08
prxxx.f90(4): warning #5198: Use of comma to separate io-access spec and
io_list is non_standard.
  write (*,*), 1, 2, 3
-------------^

So gfortran is even stricter than ifort.  Did you complain to Intel?

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[w6ws at earthlink dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

--- Comment #3 from Walter Spector <w6ws at earthlink dot net> ---
I didn't complain to Intel, but I can...

However the compilers that did catch it by default were NAG, lahey, and Absoft.

Walter

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2014-04-05
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> My thoughts are that a warning message should be issued, rather than
> quietly accepting the extension by default.

It seems quite trivial to fix, but does it really worth the work?

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[w6ws at earthlink dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

--- Comment #6 from Walter Spector <w6ws at earthlink dot net> ---
Adding that both READ and WRITE have this issue.  Interestingly, the iolength
version of INQUIRE does not:

  inquire (iolength=i), i
                      1
Error: Expected expression in INQUIRE statement at (1)

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[anlauf at gmx dot de]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

--- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #5)
> > It seems quite trivial to fix, but does it really worth the work?
> 
> Well, we had an instance where this accidentally slipped into our code. 
> Later on, our nightly regression runs crashed with several non-gfortran (and
> non-Intel) compilers.

If you want diagnostics of standard violations, you might consider adding
-std=f2008 (e.g.) to the compile flags in your test suite.  Most compilers
allow "their" set of extensions by default.

> The extension itself is pretty gratuitous.  It adds nothing to the language,
> yet can quietly promote incompatibilities.  Since g95 also accepts it, I am
> assuming it came into the compiler before the split.

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[kargl at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #6)
> Adding that both READ and WRITE have this issue.  Interestingly, the
> iolength version of INQUIRE does not:
> 
>   inquire (iolength=i), i
>                       1
> Error: Expected expression in INQUIRE statement at (1)

It a g77 compatibility issue.  From the g77 manual (page 190),

· The commas in `READ (5), I' and `WRITE (10), J'.
  These commas are disallowed by FORTRAN 77, but, while strictly superfluous,
  are syntactically elegant, especially given that commas are required in
  statements such as `READ 99, I' and `PRINT *, J'. Many compilers permit
  the superfluous commas for this reason.

This is part of GNU Fortran, which I agree a cesspool of vendor
extensions.  I doubt that this will be changed (too many more
important things to work on).  If you want strict conformance,
it is probably best to add -std=f95 or -std=f2003, or -std=2008
to your command line.
>From gcc-bugs-return-448383-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Apr 06 07:49:31 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-448383-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25731 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2014 07:49:30 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25685 invoked by uid 48); 6 Apr 2014 07:49:27 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/43052] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Inline memcmp is *much* slower than glibc's, no longer expanded inline
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.4.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-43052-4-FcZCgK03nE@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-43052-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-43052-4@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-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00403.txt.bz2
Content-length: 297

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43052

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
>From gcc-bugs-return-448384-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Apr 06 07:50:11 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-448384-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 26557 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2014 07:50:11 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 26495 invoked by uid 48); 6 Apr 2014 07:50:08 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/39838] [4.7/4.8/4.9 regression] unoptimal code for two simple loops
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:50:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.4.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-39838-4-TzwQ7kVR4o@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-39838-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-39838-4@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-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00404.txt.bz2
Content-length: 297

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
>From gcc-bugs-return-448386-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Apr 06 07:51:45 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-448386-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28082 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2014 07:51:45 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28016 invoked by uid 48); 6 Apr 2014 07:51:42 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/55342] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [LRA,x86] Non-optimal code for simple loop with LRA
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:51:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: vmakarov at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-55342-4-8pqHVYKcQa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55342-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55342-4@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-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00406.txt.bz2
Content-length: 297

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55342

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
>From gcc-bugs-return-448385-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Apr 06 07:51:29 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-448385-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27381 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2014 07:51:29 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 27343 invoked by uid 48); 6 Apr 2014 07:51:26 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/44281] [4.7/4.8/4.9 Regression] Global Register variable pessimisation
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:51:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization, ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: vmakarov at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-44281-4-I9NzfJa009@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-44281-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-44281-4@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-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00405.txt.bz2
Content-length: 297

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44281

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
>From gcc-bugs-return-448387-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Apr 06 07:52:04 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-448387-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29035 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2014 07:52:03 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28729 invoked by uid 48); 6 Apr 2014 07:51:58 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/57676] [4.8/4.9 Regression] ICE: Maximum number of LRA constraint passes is achieved (30)
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:52:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ra
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: vmakarov at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-57676-4-SutNkECoP8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-57676-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-57676-4@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-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00407.txt.bz2
Content-length: 297

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57676

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
>From gcc-bugs-return-448388-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Sun Apr 06 07:55:40 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-448388-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30990 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2014 07:55:39 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30962 invoked by uid 48); 6 Apr 2014 07:55:36 -0000
From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/60770] disappearing clobbers
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:55:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-60770-4-BREbVN04Ae@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-60770-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-60770-4@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: 2014-04/txt/msg00408.txt.bz2
Content-length: 381

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id`770

--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
int f(int n){
  int*p;
  {
    int q=n;
    p=&q;
  }
  return *p;
}

Here CCP turns:

  q = n_2(D);
  p_4 = &q;
  q ={v} {CLOBBER};
  _6 = *p_4;

into:

  q_5 = n_2(D);
  _6 = q_5;

I guess relying on clobbers in the middle-end for warnings is a bit
optimistic...

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[w6ws at earthlink dot net]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

--- Comment #9 from Walter Spector <w6ws at earthlink dot net> ---
Harald and Steve: I am quite aware of the std= options, thanks.

My main point is that the default situation violates the Principle of Least
Astonishment.  I don't have a problem with gfortran offering such an extension
(though I think providing it in the first place was a waste of time).  But
since it offers no desireable new capability, and allows gratuitous
incompatibility with other compilers, it would at least be worth a warning. 
The ideal would be to only allow it under a -f option - but don't do that on my
account.

In fact the gfortran man page for the -std= argument states:

           "...The default
           value for std is gnu, which specifies a superset of the Fortran 95
           standard that includes all of the extensions supported by GNU
           Fortran, although warnings will be given for obsolete extensions
           not recommended for use in new code..."

I would opine that this extension is obsolete and not recommeded for use in new
code.  Therefore a warning should be given.

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

--- Comment #10 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> ---
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 03:45:08PM +0000, w6ws at earthlink dot net wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751
> 
> --- Comment #9 from Walter Spector <w6ws at earthlink dot net> ---
> Harald and Steve: I am quite aware of the std= options, thanks.
> 
> My main point is that the default situation violates the Principle of Least
> Astonishment.

And my point is that the feature/bug is there solely for
backwards compatibility with g77.  A POLA issue back when
gfortran first replaced g77 in GCC.  Just last week in
c.l.f there was a long thread from someone who could not
use gfortran to build his legacy code, because gfortran
does not support a number of g77's old -fugly-* options.

In hindsight, I now regret contributing a number of patches
to implement g77 compatibility and common vendor extensions.
In fact, I think the default should be -std=f95+f2003+f2008.
If the feature isn't in one of the standards, an error should
be issued without an explicit option to permit the feature.
Unfortrunately, the horse left the barn years ago.

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #11 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We could just change this to a -std=legacy or a warning that would not appear
with -w.

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

--- Comment #12 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Is there an agreement to downgrade the error from GFC_STD_GNU in

gcc/fortran/io.c:      && !gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, "Comma before i/o item
list at %L", 

to GFC_STD_LEGACY? If yes, I'll submit a patch. If not, this PR should be
closed as WONTFIX.

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Is there an agreement to downgrade the error from GFC_STD_GNU in
>
> gcc/fortran/io.c:      && !gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_GNU, "Comma before i/o
> item list at %L", 
>
> to GFC_STD_LEGACY? If yes, I'll submit a patch. If not, this PR should be
> closed as WONTFIX.

PING! Without answer, I'll close the PR as WONTFIX.

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[w6ws at earthlink dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

--- Comment #14 from Walter Spector <w6ws at earthlink dot net> ---
Hi Dominique,

I am sorry I didn't see or respond to your comment from last year.  Thank you
for the ping.

Yes, it would be fine with me to recategorize the error as GFC_STD_LEGACY.

Walter

[Bug fortran/60751] Extra comma in WRITE statement not diagnosed

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60751

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW

--- Comment #15 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> Yes, it would be fine with me to recategorize the error as GFC_STD_LEGACY.

Thanks for the answer, but the ping was intended to the gfortran maintainers (I
knew your answer). If there is no objection in the coming week, I'll commit the
change under the obvious rule.