https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> --- On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:10:48PM +0000, casey.webster at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56520 > > --- Comment #7 from Casey Webster <casey.webster at gmail dot com> --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6) > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:23:17PM +0000, casey.webster at gmail dot com > > wrote: > > > > > > Also, while I'll agree that "Unclassifiable statement" is better > > > than "Invalid character in name", it would be nicer to see > > > "Unbalanced parenthesis". > > > > > > > I'm sorry that gfortran does not meet your needs. But, given > > how gfortran's matchers work, I doubt that anyone will produce > > a patch to do what you want. I could be wrong. Maybe someone > > will take up the challenge. > > > > The patch I developed and committed specifically addresses a > > problem where the error message and the locus to which it > > pointed are simply wrong. In 'c = exp(+a))', the old error > > message pointed to '+', which is a valid token in a valid > > expression. > > Understood. In this case would it be proper to request the other bug I filed > be un-marked as a duplicate of this one so this one can be resolved and the > other can still be fodder for someone with enough spare time and desire to > look > into it? Thanks for your patch btw, I only complained here since my bug was > duped to this one. > Sure, you could re-open the bug, but I doubt any of the current gfortran contributors will ever attempt to 'fix' the issue. The problem lies in how gfortran matches statements. It attempts to match a valid statement. If it fails, gfortran will queue an error message, back-up to what it considers a known good state, and then call another matcher. gfortran repeats this process for a collection of matchers. Consider an implied do-loop in a print statement: print *, (x(i), i = 1, 2) gfortran will first attempt to match a complex constant of the form (x, y). This fails and an error is queued. Then a matcher for implied-do is run. It successes and clears the error queue. Now, your problem is all matchers fail and the first error (or last because I can't remember) is printed. Sometimes those error messages are a little muddled.
