Fix issue #3135. Type Bound procedures in Fortran submodules #3324
Conversation
This fixes issue #3135 regarding the issue with using type bound procedures in Fortran submodules. The fix consists of changing the regex used in the scanner and the emitter to ignore lines starting with: module subroutine and module function as these are used to define type bound procedures instead of modules named 'subroutine' or 'function'. The regex is case insensitive.
|
Isn't this a duplicate of #3137 ? |
|
Sorry, I didn't see #3137 when I looked for the old issue. #3137 was
only a partial fix as it only modified the regex in the scanner and not
the emitter. The new pull request does both.
I'm not sure how tests works in SCons. Would it be possible to use the
code I submitted in issue #3135 as a test?
…On Monday 2019-03-04 10:30, William Deegan wrote:
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 10:30:17
From: William Deegan ***@***.***>
Reply-To: SCons/scons
<reply+0028765cbdb0d1b1340b434af112044297e49d09fb3afb9892cf0000000118951499
***@***.***>
To: SCons/scons ***@***.***>
Cc: pdiener ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [SCons/scons] Fix issue #3135. (#3324)
Isn't this a duplicate of #3137 ?
We still need a test to cover.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the
thread.[ACh2XEKniTxTh124zBv5qIBtYV0lf08qks5vTUoZgaJpZM4bcs3s.gif]
|
src/engine/SCons/Scanner/Fortran.py
Outdated
| # characters that make up the defined | ||
| # module name and save it in a group | ||
|
|
||
| def_regex = """(?i)^\s*MODULE\s+(?!PROCEDURE|SUBROUTINE|FUNCTION)(\w+)""" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you're fiddling with the regexes anyway, please make them raw strings. Python 3.8 is going to complain noisily otherwise - regex constructs containg \c where c is meaningful to re will take a warning that they're not valid Python escapes if it's not a raw string, like this:
SyntaxWarning: invalid escape sequence \s
|
Wouldn't it be better to open a separete ticket for this as this should
presumably be done consistently across SCons and not be limited to
Fortran?
…On Monday 2019-03-04 11:13, Mats Wichmann wrote:
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 11:13:24
From: Mats Wichmann ***@***.***>
Reply-To: SCons/scons
<reply+0028765c7f0e442e959d07187dd124da3693ec670d77f59f92cf0000000118951eb4
***@***.***>
To: SCons/scons ***@***.***>
Cc: pdiener ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [SCons/scons] Fix issue #3135. (#3324)
@mwichmann commented on this pull request.
____________________________________________________________________________
In src/engine/SCons/Scanner/Fortran.py:
> - def_regex = """(?i)^\s*MODULE\s+(?!PROCEDURE)(\w+)"""
+# (?i) : regex is case insensitive
+# ^\s* : any amount of white space
+# MODULE : match the string MODULE, case
+# insensitive
+# \s+ : match one or more white space
+# characters
+# (?!PROCEDURE|SUBROUTINE|FUNCTION) : but *don't* match if the next word
+# matches PROCEDURE, SUBROUTINE or
+# FUNCTION (negative lookahead
+# assertion), case insensitive
+# (\w+) : match one or more alphanumeric
+# characters that make up the define
d
+# module name and save it in a group
+
+ def_regex = """(?i)^\s*MODULE\s+(?!PROCEDURE|SUBROUTINE|FUNCTION)(\w+)"
""
If you're fiddling with the regexes anyway, please make them raw strings.
Python 3.8 is going to complain noisily otherwise - regex constructs
containg \c where c is meaningful to re will take a warning that they're not
valid Python escapes if it's not a raw string, like this:
SyntaxWarning: invalid escape sequence \s
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the
thread.[ACh2XCpqAUyDi-5P4-tDN-rfeXnaMKjHks5vTVQ0gaJpZM4bcs3s.gif]
|
@mwichmann has already resolved most/all of these. He's just trying to prevent any more being added. |
|
Well... no, I haven't resolved most of them. It's just one less thing to think about later. There's an overall task for the Py 3.8 stuff, not a lot of specific tickets yet (3.8 isn't that imminent) |
|
Okay, I have introduced raw strings in the regexes used in the Fortran
scanner and emitter and committed that to the fortran_issue_3135 branch
of my fork. I have tested that it still works with my build.
Do I have to create another pull request or is this additional change
automatically included?
…On Monday 2019-03-04 16:50, Mats Wichmann wrote:
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:50:41
From: Mats Wichmann ***@***.***>
Reply-To: SCons/scons
<reply+0028765c3ac1e6e6ef565a4dcf2cf931362f8d82ab5023ff92cf0000000118956dc1
***@***.***>
To: SCons/scons ***@***.***>
Cc: pdiener ***@***.***>, Author ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [SCons/scons] Fix issue #3135. (#3324)
Well... no, I haven't resolved most of them. It's just one less thing to
think about later. There's an overall task for the Py 3.8 stuff, not a lot
of specific tickets yet (3.8 isn't that imminent)
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the
thread.[ACh2XMEd5VCd4y7AtMINphaIsGSarcD7ks5vTaNBgaJpZM4bcs3s.gif]
|
|
I'm seeing them in this PR, nothing extra to do. |
Thanks! Every push you do to this branch will update the Pull Request until we merge it. |
bdbaddog
changed the title
|
Closing. I've pull your fixes into #3359 and added tests |
This fixes issue #3135 regarding the issue with using type bound
procedures in Fortran submodules. The fix consists of changing the
regex used in the scanner and the emitter to ignore lines starting
with:
module subroutine
and
module function
as these are used to define type bound procedures instead of modules
named 'subroutine' or 'function'. The regex is case insensitive.
Contributor Checklist:
master/src/CHANGES.txtdirectory (and read theREADME.txtin that directory)