From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15481 invoked by alias); 5 Jan 2007 06:16:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 15462 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jan 2007 06:16:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (HELO troutmask.apl.washington.edu) (128.208.78.105) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2007 06:16:32 +0000 Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost.apl.washington.edu [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l056Dbnr043719; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:13:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l056DWXv043718; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 22:13:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 06:16:00 -0000 From: Steve Kargl To: Bernhard Fischer Cc: fortran@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [patch, fortran] PR27698 - Add diagnostic message for invalid names Message-ID: <20070105061332.GB43628@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20070103165049.GA16663@aon.at> <20070104050250.GA32508@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20070104101201.GC28746@aon.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070104101201.GC28746@aon.at> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 11:12:01AM +0100, Bernhard Fischer wrote: > On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 09:02:50PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:50:49PM +0100, Bernhard Fischer wrote: > >> :ADDPATCH fortran: > >> > >> According to 3.2.1, a name is > >> letter [alphanumeric-character]... > >> > >> While we did reject invalid names, this PR wanted to have a diagnostic > >> message to be printed along rejecting the invalid name. > >> > >> The attached patch adds this diagnostic message, adds one testcase to > >> expect the newly added error message and adjusts testcases that trigger > >> the new error. > >> > > > >Why is do_iterator.f90 trigger the patch? Is this a illegal code triggering > >the wrong error message? > > do_iterator.f90 is illegal code for which an error is thrown ("cannot be > redefined inside loop beginning at") and then a different matcher > (trying 'READ(5,*) I' as a name) is tried. OK, I understand the change now. Please, commit the patch. -- Steve