> In the test case, could you also add a "PR fortran/36534" to the > as comment?
Sure. > Additionally, I wonder whether instead of the name-based checking > + && (sym->name[0] != '_' || sym->name[1] != '_')) > it wouldn't be cleaner to check > && sym->attr.intrinsic > (If you change it to attr.intrinsic, you need to set > the attribute also in intrinsic.c's gfc_convert_type_warn.) > > I know that using __... names it not really possible in Fortran (except as C > binding name), but - still - I think it is cleaner. But I am fine with > either version. OK, it sounds logical, so I tried that… it gets caught later in resolve.c, saying “… declared INTRINSIC at %L does not exist”, because it’s not actually a proper intrinsic, it’s just a function call manually constructed. In the interest of minimal modification of this code, I have committed the original approach as rev. 215887. Thanks for the review. FX
