From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 107951 invoked by alias); 15 May 2015 15:34:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 107932 invoked by uid 89); 15 May 2015 15:34:21 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-wg0-f47.google.com Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-wg0-f47.google.com) (74.125.82.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 15 May 2015 15:34:20 +0000 Received: by wgin8 with SMTP id n8so117217411wgi.0; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:34:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.82.38 with SMTP id f6mr18736286wjy.16.1431704057666; Fri, 15 May 2015 08:34:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:e35:2eec:5be0:d126:c211:d307:fcc5? ([2a01:e35:2eec:5be0:d126:c211:d307:fcc5]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q4sm3011637wja.24.2015.05.15.08.34.16 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 15 May 2015 08:34:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH] fortran/66043 -- Check for NULL() in STORAGE_SIZE() From: FX In-Reply-To: <20150515145955.GD82729@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:37:00 -0000 Cc: fortran@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <17508718-46AD-48C0-AD09-9775EE9B6896@gmail.com> References: <20150515145955.GD82729@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Steve Kargl X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg01421.txt.bz2 Hi Steve, + gfc_error ("%qs argument of %qs intrinsic at %L shall not be an " + "unallocated allocatable variable or a disassociated or " + "undefined pointer=E2=80=9D, Given that we know explicitly that the expr is NULL, wouldn=E2=80=99t it be= nicer to give only the relevant condition (here, I guess it=E2=80=99s =E2= =80=9Cundefined pointer=E2=80=9D)? Regarding the other example mention in the PR=E2=80=99s comment #2, I guess= there=E2=80=99s no requirement for the compiler to diagnose this, is there? FX