[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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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=gccview=revrev=149362 Log: 2008-07-08 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org PR fortran/40591 * decl.c (match_procedure_interface): Correct the association or creation of the interface procedure's symbol. 2008-07-08 Paul Thomas pa...@gcc.gnu.org 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
