--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-22 20:38 ---
I think we can fix this now, added a -Wsurprising warning.
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #7 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-22 20:37 ---
Subject: Bug 30239
Author: domob
Date: Fri Aug 22 20:36:12 2008
New Revision: 139499
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=139499
Log:
2008-08-22 Daniel Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fortran
--- Comment #6 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-22 12:46 ---
FUNCTION foo()
INTEGER :: foo
INTEGER :: foo
foo = 42
END FUNCTION
This is the same and I'd expect (at least) a warning here -- without -pedantic.
IMO, one should be warned (-Wsurpring/-Wall, no -pedantic, in
--- Comment #5 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-22 11:40 ---
What's with this PR, do you have any decision? I'm not sure about a `fixed'
warning, as this seems to be not common with gfortran, right?
But I'd suggest maybe a -Wsurprising warning, so that at least -Wall will
noti
--
domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-18 08:20 ---
Ups, I didn't check with -pedantic or the -std options.
Since others treat it as an error, I think, a warning in -std=gnu should be the
very least.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30239
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-18 07:49 ---
> This was a fix for a PR about a year ago - the std=gnu is meant, obviously, to
> enforce all versions of the standard on this. However, a number of other
> compilers did/do permit this wrinkle on the standard and i
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-18 06:01 ---
This was a fix for a PR about a year ago - the std=gnu is meant, obviously, to
enforce all versions of the standard on this. However, a number of other
compilers did/do permit this wrinkle on the standard and it even
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-17 20:15 ---
This is because in symbol.c's gfc_add_type there is
const char *msg = "Symbol '%s' at %L already has basic type of %s";
if (!(sym->ts.type == ts->typesym->ts.type == ts->type
&& (sym->attr.fl
