Hi Rimvydas,
Am 24.02.23 um 06:16 schrieb Rimvydas Jasinskas via Gcc-patches:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 10:53 PM Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote:
the patch is mostly fine, but there is a minor style issue:
+ if (sym->attr.ext_attr & (1 << EXT_ATTR_WEAK))
+ gfc_error ("Symbol %qs at %L has the WEAK attribute but is a %s",
+ sym->name, &sym->declared_at, sym->attr.dummy
+ ? "dummy argument" : "local variable");
+
It is my understanding that this is not translation-friendly.
Please use separate error texts for either case instead.
Interesting, I was under the impression this was fixed with OO-inlines
around the *.c rename.
if this is the case, I must have missed it.
> In any case, adjusted in v2 to use:
+ if (sym->attr.ext_attr & (1 << EXT_ATTR_WEAK))
+ {
+ if (sym->attr.dummy)
+ gfc_error ("Symbol %qs at %L has the WEAK attribute but is a "
+ "dummy argument", sym->name, &sym->declared_at);
+ else
+ gfc_error ("Symbol %qs at %L has the WEAK attribute but is a "
+ "local variable", sym->name, &sym->declared_at);
+ }
This is ok.
These testcases are dg-compile and do not go through the "-O0 -O1 -O2
-O3 -Os" options like dg-run. Combining the testcases does not reduce
gfortran.sum a lot:
I wasn't thinking of gfortran.sum, it's about the total overhead of
the testsuite (dejagnu etc.). But thanks for combining the tests!
Finally, please do not forget to CC patches to gcc-patches@
so that others can see them.
Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of CC patches to gcc-patches
too? Attachments are even available in web mailing list too, like in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2023-February/058953.html
Well, patches should always go the gcc-patches@, see e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html
On the other hand, many *Fortran* reviewers will ignore patches
there and look at them only when they are sent to fortran@.
Thanks for your patch, pushed as r13-6338-gbcbeebc498126c .
Harald
Regards,
Rimvydas
