[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc-fortran
Subject:    Re: [patch, fortran] PR43832 OPEN statement not diagnosing missing  unit number
From:       Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle () verizon ! net>
Date:       2010-04-24 17:13:22
Message-ID: 4BD326B2.6030509 () verizon ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>> Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>>>> Jerry DeLisle wrote:
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> The attached patch adds an error message. I also found a redundant 
>>>>> and bad
>>>>> test case fgetc_3.f90 that failed with this patch and so I deleted 
>>>>> it and
>>>>> added the new test case open_nounit.f90.
>>>> Disregard the fgetc_3.f90 missing. My local trunk was at r158397.  
>>>> Otherwise
>>>> all is identical.
>>>
>>> I'm not sufficiently sure (well ok, safe-side thickness) I
>>> understand you correctly, but in r158687 gfortran.dg/fgetc_3.f90
>>> is there and failing (for cris-elf, but I guess universally).
>>> It's not mentioned in your testsuite changelog.
>>>
>>> Should it just be removed?
>>>
>>> brgds, H-P
>>>
>>
>> To clarify, I found fgetc_3.f90 in my local tree at rev 158397 on my 
>> laptop.  I discovered it because it failed with the patch.  Looking 
>> closer at it I could see it had an OPEN statement with a missing 
>> UNIT.  Looking at fgetc_2 and 1 I could see it was a duplicated test 
>> case except for the bad OPEN statement.  So I  deleted it.
>>
>> Then I ported my patch over to my desktop machine from where I do my 
>> patch commits and found the patch buggered up because fgetc_3.f90 was 
>> not on trunk. This is when I realized I did not have latest trunk on 
>> my laptop and that since 158397, fgetc_3.f90 had already been deleted 
>> from trunk.
>>
>> This whole fgetc_3.f90 is a bit odd.  I did not find it in my local 
>> version of 158687.
>>
>> Regardless, it should be deleted.  I do not understand why you find it 
>> in your trunk.  "svn update" should delete it.  I did not explicitly 
>> or implicitly delete it from trunk when I committed the 
>> open_nounit.f90 test case. "svn status" does not show it missing from 
>> my local trunk
>>
>> Hope this clarifies.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>  Hmm, I have made an error some where.  Oh well, I see it in trunk now 
> and I will do a proper delete of it.
> 
> Jerry
> 
... and .. Hans-Peter has beat me to it.  thank you!

Jerry

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]