Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-09 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 06:51:50PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > > > > > It is valid syntax because of > > > > "An empty sequence forms a zero-sized rank-one array." > > > > It seems that J3 saw the error in their ways as (/ /) is clearly > > an empty array constructor, and fixed the po

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-09 Thread Dominique d'Humières
> > It is valid syntax because of > > "An empty sequence forms a zero-sized rank-one array." > > It seems that J3 saw the error in their ways as (/ /) is clearly > an empty array constructor, and fixed the possibility of creating > a typeless zero-sized, rank-one array. This is exactly the po

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-09 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 05:56:12PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > > > (/ /) is valid Fortran 95 syntax > > ... > > > > program foo > > call bar((/ /)) > > end program foo > > > > % gfc -c -std=f95 foo.f90 > > foo.f90:2:17: > > > >call bar((/ /)) > > 1 > > Error: Empt

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-09 Thread Dominique d'Humières
> (/ /) is valid Fortran 95 syntax > ... > > program foo > call bar((/ /)) > end program foo > > % gfc -c -std=f95 foo.f90 > foo.f90:2:17: > >call bar((/ /)) > 1 > Error: Empty array constructor at (1) is not allowed > > The above error is correct. Well the two asserti

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-09 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 12:28:12PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > >>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should > it be back ported to the gcc-5 branch? > >>> > >>> No and No. > >

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-09 Thread Dominique d'Humières
>>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should it be back ported to the gcc-5 branch? >>> >>> No and No. > Le 7 avr. 2016 à 15:59, Steve Kargl a > écrit : > > The latter is obvious as th

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-07 Thread Steve Kargl
The latter is obvious as this "fixes" neither a regression nor documentation. For the former, see Fortran 95, section 4.5. -- steve On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 07:51:14AM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > Could you please elaborate. > > Dominique > > > Le 7 avr. 2016 à 07:48, Steve Kargl a >

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-06 Thread Dominique d'Humières
Could you please elaborate. Dominique > Le 7 avr. 2016 à 07:48, Steve Kargl a > écrit : > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: >> Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should it be >> back ported to the gcc-5 branch? > > No and No.

Re: [PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-06 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 05:44:55PM +0200, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should it be > back ported to the gcc-5 branch? No and No. -- Steve

[PATCH] PR47040 - Make error message for empty array constructor more helpful/correct

2016-04-06 Thread Dominique d'Humières
Is the following patch OK (regtested on x86_64-apple-darwin15)? Should it be back ported to the gcc-5 branch? TIA Dominique Index: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog === --- gcc/fortran/ChangeLog (revision 234788) +++ gcc/fortran/ChangeLo