------- Comment #5 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2008-10-04 10:29 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > The problem is clearly that because of the error the type-bound procedure > remains in a somewhat "dubious" state (its pass_arg_num is invalid) and this > causes the ICE when resolving an actual call to it afterwards. This is of > course easy to fix. > > But I wonder about what a subsequent call to the procedure should do, as the > PASS could not be resolved... This will then probably generate errors about > actual/formal arglist mismatch for correct calls where only the name inside > PASS(x) is wrong. Is this ok? The easiest would probably be to take > PASS(invalid) as NOPASS or interpret it as PASS without argument name for that > matter. > > Another solution would be to simply ignore calls to such an erraneous > procedure > in the resolver (and set them to EXEC_NOP for instance to avoid later > confusion > of gfortran?) which would mean that there is no error checking at all for > them; > but as this is not possible anyway, maybe that should be the way to go? >
Hmm. I see that in my previous comment #3 I said the wrong thing: the attached sample code should be correct, once the name in the PASS argument is fixed. The reasoning behind #3 is that in my original code I have types derived from base_foo_type, which means that for *those* types an argument mismatch must be issued if I try to invoke makenull, until the CLASS() declaration is implemented, so that the makenull() body can be written in the proper way. So, I was still thinking of my code and not of the cut-down test case. Sorry for the confusion. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37638
