[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-24 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 19:16 --- Resolving fixed, discussion on better option names and minor changes welcome :) -- domob at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-24 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 18:53 --- Subject: Bug 33141 Author: domob Date: Thu Jul 24 18:52:51 2008 New Revision: 138122 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=138122 Log: 2008-07-24 Daniel Kraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR fortran

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-21 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-21 14:31 --- > Regarding -Wnonstd-intrinsic, what should I do there? It is ignored now, and > I'll change this in the documentation (as well as mentioning the new flags, of > course); but do I also have to add some "deprecated" f

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-21 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-21 12:17 --- (In reply to comment #5) > For the "INTRINSIC :: " error, one could consider mentioning > "-fall-intrinsics" > in the error message. I'll do so (as I already do in the warning message), this makes of course sense. >

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-21 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-21 11:37 --- For the "INTRINSIC :: " error, one could consider mentioning "-fall-intrinsics" in the error message. Regarding intrinsic subroutine and external/user-supplied function (and vice versa): I think it is OK to not to wa

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-21 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-21 10:02 --- Created an attachment (id=15935) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15935&action=view) Proposed test cases Here's a set of test-cases (as diff) as I plan to fix this bug (dg-format may not yet be corr

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-19 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-19 11:55 --- > REAL :: asinh The real solution is to use "external asinh" if a non-intrinsic procedure is meant. > When compiled with -std=f2008 -Wall, it calls the intrinsic "correct" asinh. > I suspect, in this case we want

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2008-07-19 Thread domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-19 09:38 --- I want to work on this and started experimenting... Consider this test: ! ASINH is an intrinsic function as of F2008, not before. ! XXX: I hope so... REAL FUNCTION asinh (arg) IMPLICIT NONE REAL :: arg ! Do som

[Bug fortran/33141] Intrinsic procedures: Improve warning/error with -std=*

2007-08-21 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-21 22:31 --- See PR 20248 before you change -fall-intrinsics behavior. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33141