[Flang] Fix grammar in pointer assignment error message

[Sekar-C-Mca]

This PR corrects a grammatical mistake in an error message emitted during pointer assignment checks in Flang.
The message previously read:

"%s is associated with the result of a reference to function '%s' that is a not a pointer"

The extra "a" before "not a pointer" has been removed.

[github-actions]

Thank you for submitting a Pull Request (PR) to the LLVM Project!

This PR will be automatically labeled and the relevant teams will be notified.

If you wish to, you can add reviewers by using the "Reviewers" section on this page.

If this is not working for you, it is probably because you do not have write permissions for the repository. In which case you can instead tag reviewers by name in a comment by using @ followed by their GitHub username.

If you have received no comments on your PR for a week, you can request a review by "ping"ing the PR by adding a comment “Ping”. The common courtesy "ping" rate is once a week. Please remember that you are asking for valuable time from other developers.

If you have further questions, they may be answered by the LLVM GitHub User Guide.

You can also ask questions in a comment on this PR, on the LLVM Discord or on the forums.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-semantics

Author: Sekar (Sekar-C-Mca)

Changes

This PR corrects a grammatical mistake in an error message emitted during pointer assignment checks in Flang.
The message previously read:

"%s is associated with the result of a reference to function '%s' that is a not a pointer"

The extra "a" before "not a pointer" has been removed.

---

Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/150909.diff

1 Files Affected:

• (modified) flang/lib/Semantics/pointer-assignment.cpp (+1-1)

diff --git a/flang/lib/Semantics/pointer-assignment.cpp b/flang/lib/Semantics/pointer-assignment.cpp
index 090876912138a..47973cca35654 100644
--- a/flang/lib/Semantics/pointer-assignment.cpp
+++ b/flang/lib/Semantics/pointer-assignment.cpp
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ bool PointerAssignmentChecker::Check(const evaluate::FunctionRef<T> &f) {
           " function '%s' that is a procedure pointer"_err_en_US;
   } else if (!funcResult->attrs.test(FunctionResult::Attr::Pointer)) {
     msg = "%s is associated with the result of a reference to function '%s'"
-          " that is a not a pointer"_err_en_US;
+          " that is not a pointer"_err_en_US;
   } else if (isContiguous_ &&
       !funcResult->attrs.test(FunctionResult::Attr::Contiguous)) {
     auto restorer{common::ScopedSet(lhs_, symbol)};

[tarunprabhu]

LGTM. Thanks.

[Sekar-C-Mca]

@tarunprabhu
I had already commented on this issue and submitted a PR earlier. Later, another contributor self-assigned and raised a duplicate PR #150864. I'm new to open source — just wanted to check if this is something I should be concerned about, or if there's a standard way to handle such cases. Appreciate your guidance!

[tarunprabhu]

@Sekar-C-Mca, thanks for the PR. This does happen sometimes.

Closing in favor of #151029

[tarunprabhu]

@Sekar-C-Mca

It is usually better to ask if anyone is working on an issue before you provide a fix for it. For something small, it is not unreasonable to just provide a PR, but you risk someone else fixing it themselves as has happened here. You could also assign the issue to yourself which signals to others that you are actively working on it.

However, every project is different, and some will not allow just anyone to assign issues to themselves. Others have more defined processes to contribute code. So there isn't one fixed approach that will work everywhere.

Hope that helps.