On 28 January 2024 22:43:37 CET, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: >On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 08:56:24PM +0100, Harald Anlauf wrote: >> >> Am 28.01.24 um 12:39 schrieb Mikael Morin: >> > Le 24/01/2024 à 22:39, Harald Anlauf a écrit : >> > > Dear all, >> > > >> > > this patch is actually only a followup fix to generate the proper name >> > > of an array reference in derived-type components for the runtime error >> > > message generated for the bounds-checking code. Without the proper >> > > part ref, not only a user may get confused: I was, too... >> > > >> > > The testcase is compile-only, as it is only important to check the >> > > strings used in the error messages. >> > > >> > > Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? >> > > >> > >> > the change proper looks good, and is an improvement. But I'm a little >> > concerned by the production of references like in the test x1%vv%z which >> > could be confusing and is strictly speaking invalid fortran (multiple >> > non-scalar components). Did you consider generating x1%vv(?,?)%zz or >> > x1%vv(...)%z or similar? >> >> yes, that seems very reasonable, given that this is what NAG does. >> >> We also have spurious %_data in some error messages that I'll try >> to get rid off. >> > >I haven't looked at the patch, but sometimes (if not always) things >like _data are marked with attr.artificial. You might see if this >will help with suppressing spurious messages. >
Reminds me of https://inbox.sourceware.org/fortran/20211114231748.376086cd@nbbrfq/ Maybe thats missing, i did not apply that yet, did i? HTH
