>> One leftover problem: The patch currently fails on the auto_char_len_4
>> test case, which is not being rejected any more. Actually I'm not
>> fully convinced that the dg-errors there are correct: If the EXTERNAL
>> statements in auto_char_len_{1,2} do not trigger an "explicit
>> interface required" warning, I don't see why the ones in
>> auto_char_len_4 should.
>
>
> Regarding auto_char_len_[12].f90: A warning about an "explicit interface
> required" would be a bad joke as it contains an assumed character length
> function
Sure, I wasn't proposing to throw such a warning.
> By contrast, auto_char_len_4 uses "normal" function results, which could be
> used with an explicit interface.
Right. My point was basically that the external declaration looks the
same way as in the _{1,2} case, and the "implementation" has a
constant char-len, so I don't see any reason why we should require an
explicit interface.
Cheers,
Janus
