------- Comment #6 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-10-04 10:40 ------- (In reply to comment #5)
> 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. No problem, in fact I was generally wondering how to handle this situation; I'm now going to write up a patch where there would simply be an error for the PROCEDURE declaration (of course), no ICE (also of course) and the call would not print an error for any mismatched or not mismatched arglist, as this would be problematic. Well, we'll see what the final patch will look like :) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37638
