[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2008-05-16 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-16 16:47 --- Closing this. I doubt we can get them all but this gets quite a few more -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2008-05-16 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #11 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-16 16:45 --- Subject: Bug 34325 Author: jvdelisle Date: Fri May 16 16:44:28 2008 New Revision: 135428 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135428 Log: 2008-05-16 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2008-02-15 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-16 05:15 --- Reply to comment #9. The new function is only being used in one place at the moment. We have to apply it case by case, and frankly, "handling" invalid Fortran code is lower on the priority at the moment. We'll

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2008-01-23 Thread terry at chem dot gu dot se
--- Comment #9 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2008-01-23 23:00 --- Actually, with bad parentheses it's easy to generate strange error messages: do while ((.true.) 1 Error: Invalid character in name at (1) do while (.true. 1 Error: Unclassifiable statement at (1) Yes,

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2008-01-23 Thread terry at chem dot gu dot se
--- Comment #8 from terry at chem dot gu dot se 2008-01-23 21:54 --- Rather than open a new bug, I'll tack onto this one as it's pretty much the same bug in a different context. The latest gfortran does indeed give a sensible error for the test case above. However, if we put something

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2007-12-21 Thread dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-21 22:17 --- *** Bug 24759 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2007-12-18 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-19 05:59 --- Fixed on trunk -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Sta

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2007-12-18 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-19 05:59 --- Subject: Bug 34325 Author: jvdelisle Date: Wed Dec 19 05:58:53 2007 New Revision: 131053 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131053 Log: 2007-12-19 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2007-12-18 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-19 05:55 --- Subject: Bug 34325 Author: jvdelisle Date: Wed Dec 19 05:55:17 2007 New Revision: 131052 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=131052 Log: 2007-12-19 Jerry DeLisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2007-12-14 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-14 19:21 --- Patch submitted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-12/msg00685.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34325

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2007-12-09 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-10 03:15 --- I am working on a function to catch the parenthesis problem. -- jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug fortran/34325] Wrong error message for syntax error

2007-12-05 Thread jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-12-06 03:52 --- The error is in gfc_match_if. There is code that is doing gfc_match_assignment in the IF statement twice to catch the reported condition. So the invalid code falls through to this and catches it. The easy way o