[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 16:46 --- (In reply to comment #10) > Note that I did not apply the patch to 4.4 as I said that I would. What do > you > think? 4.4 is sufficiently different from 4.5/6 that I am closing this as fixed. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 14:05 --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > I guess everything is fixed now. Can we close this PR? > > Ping? > Note that I did not apply the patch to 4.4 as I said that I would. What do you think? Cheers Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #9 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 20:30 --- (In reply to comment #8) > I guess everything is fixed now. Can we close this PR? Ping? -- dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-20 09:24 --- I guess everything is fixed now. Can we close this PR? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-07-08 13:31 --- pr40683 is a duplicate. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 13:28 --- (In reply to comment #5) > That is solved by adding: >i = 0 > to subroutine test (while any other number causes the abortion). > Indeed - that was in the test originally; I do not know what happened to it. I'll put it right tonight. Thanks Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 12:37 --- (In reply to comment #4) > It seems that gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_21.f90 is failing on i686-pc-linux-gnu and > Intel64(?), see I can - somewhat - reproduce it. It does not fail but valgrind shows (x86-64-linux and i686-linux): ==32231== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) ==32231==at 0x80485A2: test.1513 (proc_ptr_21.f90:26) ==32231==by 0x8048548: MAIN__ (proc_ptr_21.f90:8) ==32231==by 0x80485F4: main (proc_ptr_21.f90:8) That is solved by adding: i = 0 to subroutine test (while any other number causes the abortion). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-07-08 11:47 --- It seems that gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_21.f90 is failing on i686-pc-linux-gnu and Intel64(?), see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-07/msg00755.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-07/msg00078.html -- dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu dot org http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 09:48 --- Well. I suppose that I should accept the bug :-) I will commit the fix to 4.4 over the weekend, so please try to test it to destruction on 4.5. Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org |dot org | Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2009-07-07 05:01:00 |2009-07-08 09:48:15 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 04:38 --- Subject: Bug 40591 Author: pault Date: Wed Jul 8 04:38:06 2009 New Revision: 149362 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149362 Log: 2008-07-08 Paul Thomas PR fortran/40591 * decl.c (match_procedure_interface): Correct the association or creation of the interface procedure's symbol. 2008-07-08 Paul Thomas PR fortran/40591 * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_21.f90: New test. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_21.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
[Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 05:01 --- (In reply to comment #0) > The following program fails with: > > procedure(sub), pointer :: pptr2 > 1 > Error: Interface 'sub' of procedure 'pptr2' at (1) must be explicit > > > The question is whether it is valid or not. As both NAG f95 and ifort reject > it > (g95 accepts it), it might be invalid. Although I can find nowhere in the standards that says that it is valid, I believe that by the normal rules of host association of procedures, it must be. gfortran accepts it if 'test' and 'sub' are interchanged. I have put it on my todo list. Cheers Paul -- pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-07-07 05:01:00 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
