[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #12 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-05-05 07:09 --- (In reply to comment #11) I've looked at the problem. The -Wall option will set the -Wnonstd-intrinsic option. This flag appears to trigger a warning when used with -pedantic. It does not trigger a warning if you use it with just -std=f95. I am getting rather confused now. I would like to compile code that (with regard to language) is mostly strict Fortran 95 *except* using the rather common intrinsic extensions iargc and getarg. Therefore I use -std=f95 -Wall, but not -pedantic, because I also use other people's code that I do not want to fix. If something does not strictly adhere to the standard, getting a warning is fine, but stopping with an error is annoying. (This is how I used g77 and why I liked it very much. Easy to handle.) BTW: I just checked -Wnonstd-intrinsics (did not know about it before) and found that I cannot turn it off by using -Wno-nonstd-intrinsics. I guess that this is a bug. Back to your suggestion: I have a patch that will turn this back into a warning. Will this make you happy? troutmask:sgk[255] gfc4x -std=f95 -fall-intrinsics -Wnonstd-intrinsics -o z iargc.f90 In file iargc.f90:5 print *, iargc() 1 Warning: Intrinsic 'iargc' at (1) is not included in the selected standard troutmask:sgk[256] ./z 2 1 Any chance that -std=f95 -Wall -fall-intrinsics could do the same, maybe (*cough*) without (*cough*) a warning, needless to say an error? If I want a warning even with -fall-intrinsics, I would turn it on again with -Wnonstd-intrinsics. Cheers, -ha -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #13 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2006-05-05 14:25 --- Subject: Re: gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 07:09:37AM -, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote: --- Comment #12 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-05-05 07:09 --- (In reply to comment #11) I've looked at the problem. The -Wall option will set the -Wnonstd-intrinsic option. This flag appears to trigger a warning when used with -pedantic. It does not trigger a warning if you use it with just -std=f95. I am getting rather confused now. You're not the only one. :) gfortran is growing a rather large set of options and checking the interaction among them is a pain. BTW: I just checked -Wnonstd-intrinsics (did not know about it before) and found that I cannot turn it off by using -Wno-nonstd-intrinsics. I guess that this is a bug. I would need to look at options.c to see how the flag is set. I'm surprise that the no- form isn't available. troutmask:sgk[255] gfc4x -std=f95 -fall-intrinsics -Wnonstd-intrinsics -o z iargc.f90 In file iargc.f90:5 print *, iargc() 1 Warning: Intrinsic 'iargc' at (1) is not included in the selected standard troutmask:sgk[256] ./z 2 Any chance that -std=f95 -Wall -fall-intrinsics could do the same, maybe (*cough*) without (*cough*) a warning, needless to say an error? Sure. I can make it do this. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #14 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2006-05-05 17:09 --- Subject: Re: gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 07:09:37AM -, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote: Any chance that -std=f95 -Wall -fall-intrinsics could do the same, maybe (*cough*) without (*cough*) a warning, needless to say an error? If I want a warning even with -fall-intrinsics, I would turn it on again with -Wnonstd-intrinsics. Harald, How does this look to you? % gfc4x -o z -std=f95 iargc.f90 /home/sgk/tmp/ccSftiWA.o(.text+0x55): In function `MAIN__': : undefined reference to `iargc_' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status % gfc4x -o z -std=f95 -fall-intrinsics iargc.f90 % gfc4x -o z -std=f95 -fall-intrinsics -Wall iargc.f90 % gfc4x -o z -std=f95 -fall-intrinsics -Wnonstd-intrinsics iargc.f90 % gfc4x -o z -std=f95 -fall-intrinsics -Wno-nonstd-intrinsics iargc.f90 % gfc4x -o z -pedantic -Wno-nonstd-intrinsics iargc.f90 % gfc4x -o z -pedantic -Wnonstd-intrinsics iargc.f90 In file iargc.f90:5 print *, iargc() 1 Warning: Intrinsic 'iargc' at (1) is not included in the selected standard % gfc4x -o z -pedantic -Wall iargc.f90 In file iargc.f90:5 print *, iargc() 1 Warning: Intrinsic 'iargc' at (1) is not included in the selected standard -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-05-05 22:44 --- (In reply to comment #14) How does this look to you? Steve, this is perfect! Many thanks, -ha -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #16 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-05 23:19 --- Fixed, again. ;-) -- kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-05-04 07:22 --- (In reply to comment #9) Fixed by the additional of -fall-intrinsics option. Steve, the -fall-intrinsics option does not work when in addition -Wall is specified. The original code the leads to: In file iargc.f90:4 print *, iargc () 1 Error: Intrinsic 'iargc' at (1) is not included in the selected standard -- anlauf at gmx dot de changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|FIXED | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-04 22:04 --- Harald, I've looked at the problem. The -Wall option will set the -Wnonstd-intrinsic option. This flag appears to trigger a warning when used with -pedantic. It does not trigger a warning if you use it with just -std=f95. troutmask:sgk[254] gfc4x -std=f95 -Wnonstd-intrinsics -o z iargc.f90 /home/sgk/tmp/ccaTswTS.o(.text+0x55): In function `MAIN__': : undefined reference to `iargc_' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status which by now looks familiar to you. With -std=f95 -fall-intrinsic -Wall., gfortran added iargc to the list of intrinsics and set -Wnonstd-intrinsics to trigger a warning. However, the -std=f95 was telling gfc_notify_std to convert the warning to an error. I have a patch that will turn this back into a warning. Will this make you happy? troutmask:sgk[255] gfc4x -std=f95 -fall-intrinsics -Wnonstd-intrinsics -o z iargc.f90 In file iargc.f90:5 print *, iargc() 1 Warning: Intrinsic 'iargc' at (1) is not included in the selected standard troutmask:sgk[256] ./z 2 1 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-03 21:24 --- Subject: Bug 20248 Author: kargl Date: Wed May 3 21:24:11 2006 New Revision: 113502 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113502 Log: 2006-03-30 Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR fortran/26896 * lang.opt: Fix -Wtab description PR fortran/20248 * lang.opt: New flag -fall-intrinsics. * invoke.texi: Document option. * gfortran.h (options_t): New member flag_all_intrinsics. * options.c (gfc_init_options, gfc_handle_option): Set new option. sort nearby misplaced options. * intrinsic.c (add_sym, make_generic, make_alias): Use it. 2006-03-30 Steven G. Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] * gfortran.dg/iargc.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/iargc.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h trunk/gcc/fortran/intrinsic.c trunk/gcc/fortran/invoke.texi trunk/gcc/fortran/lang.opt trunk/gcc/fortran/options.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-03 21:26 --- Fixed by the additional of -fall-intrinsics option. -- kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED Version|4.0.0 |4.2.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-27 00:08 --- I have a patch for this problem. It implements a new flag that prevents gfortran's enforcement of the Standard with respect to gfortran's rich set of intrinsics. program z if (iargc() /= 0) call abort end program z kargl[227] gfc4x -o z iargc.f90 kargl[228] gfc4x -o z -fall-intrinsics -std=f95 iargc.f90 kargl[229] gfc4x -o z -std=f95 iargc.f90 /var/tmp/ccqDOkrX.o(.text+0x18): In function `MAIN__': : undefined reference to `iargc_' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status I'll post the patch tomorrow. Harald, does this satisfy your needs? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2006-03-27 07:32 --- kargl[228] gfc4x -o z -fall-intrinsics -std=f95 iargc.f90 kargl[229] gfc4x -o z -std=f95 iargc.f90 /var/tmp/ccqDOkrX.o(.text+0x18): In function `MAIN__': : undefined reference to `iargc_' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status Harald, does this satisfy your needs? Yes, that's fine with me. Thanks, -ha -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Additional Comments From anlauf at hep dot tu-darmstadt dot de 2005-06-23 07:42 --- In order to retain the advantages of having -std=f95 and common intrinsic extensions, I suggest to enable the latter by a suitable compiler option. g77 did this. g95 does this with -fintrinsic-extensions. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Additional Comments From anlauf at hep dot tu-darmstadt dot de 2005-03-01 08:33 --- (In reply to comment #3) Read the F2003 standard. 5.1.2.8INTRINSIC attribute The INTRINSIC attribute confirms that a name is the specific name (13.6) or generic name (13.5) of an intrinsic procedure. OK When you set -std=f95, iargc is not an intrinsic procedure. So, when you ask gfortran to *confirm* that iargc is an intrinsic procedure, it tells that it isn't. The default behavior for gfortran is -std=gnu, which makes iargc an intrinsic procedure. It is OK to reject iargc as an intrinsic procedure in the -std=f95 case during compilation, but the failure during linking when iargc is not specified as an intrinsic isn't. The Intel compiler (v8.1) resolves the problem as follows: - it does not change the name mapping/mangling when -stand=f95 is specified - it maps the recognized intrinsic iargc to for_iargc when it is requested as an intrinsic or not specified as external - it is mangled to iargc_ when specified as external - it provides entry points in the runtime for both iargc_ and for_iargc (disassembling the runtime shows that both have identical code). The version 7.1 of the compiler had the VAX/U*ix intrinsics in a separate portability library. g77 recognized several options to disable special intrinsics. In the case of iargc, g77 -funix-intrinsics-disable does the job. g95 does not recognize this option, and having -std=f95 doing too many things behind my back is counterproductive. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-28 13:39 --- This is expected behavor because iargc is non standard and we turn off non standard intrisics with -std=f95 (kinda like what gcc does for non stanadard builtins) and that iargc is not _iargc really but _gfortran_iargc. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution||INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Additional Comments From anlauf at hep dot tu-darmstadt dot de 2005-02-28 22:11 --- But is it consistently handled as an intrinsic? Modify the program by adding the line intrinsic :: iargc and compile without -std=f95. Now the name gets mapped to _gfortran_iargc, which is reasonable. If I declare it as external, then it becomes iargc_. So far so good. Adding -std=f95 makes the compilation fail with the error message In file iargc.f90:3 integer :: iargc 1 Error: Intrinsic at (1) does not exist but only if iargc is declared as intrinsic. Thus, a symbol that is _neither_ declared as intrinsic nor external can change its behavior under the language level flag: it is mapped to the intrinsic name in one case (no -std=f95), and to the external name in the other. This is why I consider it surprising and undesirable. A better way would be to have a separate flag to control the behavior and availability of such intrinsics separately, independent of the standard conformance flags. -- What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
[Bug fortran/20248] gfortran: intrinsics and std=f95, inconsistency with other compilers
--- Additional Comments From sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu 2005-03-01 01:02 --- Read the F2003 standard. 5.1.2.8INTRINSIC attribute The INTRINSIC attribute confirms that a name is the specific name (13.6) or generic name (13.5) of an intrinsic procedure. When you set -std=f95, iargc is not an intrinsic procedure. So, when you ask gfortran to *confirm* that iargc is an intrinsic procedure, it tells that it isn't. The default behavior for gfortran is -std=gnu, which makes iargc an intrinsic procedure. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20248
