From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 109579 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2018 19:03:00 -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 109062 invoked by uid 89); 6 Dec 2018 19:02:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 spammy=H*Ad:U*tkoenig, offer X-HELO: cc-smtpout2.netcologne.de Received: from cc-smtpout2.netcologne.de (HELO cc-smtpout2.netcologne.de) (89.1.8.212) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 19:02:49 +0000 Received: from cc-smtpin1.netcologne.de (cc-smtpin1.netcologne.de [89.1.8.201]) by cc-smtpout2.netcologne.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9C0128B4; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 20:02:47 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=netcologne.de; s=nc1116a; t=1544122967; bh=WtFa6Z1NyzBpYrQ1pctIT6ZTCrpRGWlQ+Dl2vLb8K7w=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Message-ID:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=M7BcSB8WEmsEFJ3j7rBXH/q4B8Wmgvp5BxUeTi6WJn0vdlbV9Wd42+tOCQ8YeoZBH RcKO4F3/66L/RRex+molNmHZgM8Qny5LxbH/GHywVhfp3z4gEMrwkNouBOGyztJCP7 rG9EbVyuPEiXfSPdgPALDjIgIN6r3H1aD8FkKBTGL+MPrr9iYKfTJtAHRflyH2NKeC 0HfIipL7w9t9N3sGktE1lp6H8VNr3mhCs6jfOBV+kfrKZ4XYKI1BR2UNFfkaYcPn+X 81mf/zDQxX7ySKmJcLBHXNTo1vDBKO1HSk66vUb7FD6XagNaK2LTIW1Ulzh74k8C/a loE7BEMmITMsg== Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cc-smtpin1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A1D11F06; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 20:02:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [78.35.130.204] (helo=cc-smtpin1.netcologne.de) by localhost with ESMTP (eXpurgate 4.6.0) (envelope-from ) id 5c097257-5f8a-7f0000012729-7f000001bc92-1 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2018 20:02:47 +0100 Received: from [192.168.178.68] (xdsl-78-35-130-204.nc.de [78.35.130.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by cc-smtpin1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Thu, 6 Dec 2018 20:02:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Fortran patches To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, Fritz Reese Cc: fortran , gcc-patches References: <20181205045945.GA40221@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20181206000315.GA47513@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> From: Thomas Koenig Message-ID: Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 19:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181206000315.GA47513@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-12/txt/msg00391.txt.bz2 Hi Steve, >>> PR fortran/88139 >>> * dump-parse-tree.c (write_proc): Alternate return. >> I dissent with this patch. The introduced error is meaningless and, as >> mentioned by comment #3 in the PR, avoiding the ICE in dump-parse-tree >> is not directly the issue. The code should be rejected in parsing. In >> gcc-8.1 the invalid code is accepted (without an ICE) even without the >> -fc-prototypes flag: I haven't finished building the compiler with >> your changes yet to see whether that is still true afterwards, but at >> least the test case doesn't try this, so I strongly suspect the patch >> is incomplete to fix the PR. > > Comment #3 does not contain a patch to fix the problem elsewhere. I know :-) > In F2003, 15.2.6 "Interoperability of procedures and procedure interfaces", > I cannot find a prohibition on an alternate return in a subroutine > interface with BIND(C). I also does not allow this, and does not offer a valid interpretation of what it should mean. If it has a meaning, it should be translatable into something prescribed by the standard with -fc-prototypes. I have assigned the error to myself, so I will not forget to fix it before the gcc 9 release. Regards Thomas