From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1774 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2014 09:07:53 -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 1749 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jun 2014 09:07:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: nef2.ens.fr Received: from nef2.ens.fr (HELO nef2.ens.fr) (129.199.96.40) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 01 Jun 2014 09:07:50 +0000 Received: from mailhost.lps.ens.fr (tournesol.lps.ens.fr [129.199.120.1]) by nef2.ens.fr (8.13.6/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id s5197lRK077308 ; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:07:47 +0200 (CEST) X-Envelope-To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailhost.lps.ens.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8693B7D; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:07:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mailhost.lps.ens.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tournesol.lps.ens.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bKpiBV2sz7Ib; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:07:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mailhost.lps.ens.fr (Postfix, from userid 8513) id 742D4105; Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:07:47 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 09:07:00 -0000 To: fortran@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com, joost.vandevondele@mat.ethz.ch Subject: Re: [PATCH, Fortran] PR61234: -Wuse-no-only User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 6/20/10 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20140601090747.742D4105@mailhost.lps.ens.fr> From: dominiq@lps.ens.fr (Dominique Dhumieres) X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 > I think it is really weird if a coding style warning is included in -Wall. I fully agree. In top of that the patch looks like a blind enforcement of this coding style. What is the rationale of + SUBROUTINE S2 + USE foo, ONLY: bar ! { dg-bogus "has no ONLY qualifier" } + END SUBROUTINE ? Cheers, Dominique