[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|RESOLVED|NEW Last reconfirmed||2013-08-07 Resolution|INVALID |--- Summary|[F03] over-zealous |[4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] |procedure pointer error |over-zealous |checking in gfortran 4.8|procedure-pointer error ||checking Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Hi Andrew, > I think you should read the part of the standard I quoted again? It clearly > specifies that the procedure target may be pure even if the procedure > pointer is not sorry, I did not read your comment before submitting mine. And I think you're right: Indeed it seems to be permitted by F03 (btw the same wording is given in the F08 standard in section 7.2.2.4). So, correcting my statement in comment 3: All three assignments are supposed to be valid. Also this is a regression in 4.8 (as 4.7 compiles the test case without errror). Thanks for checking the standard and correcting me. I will take care of fixing this ...
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- My first suspicion is that the regression was introduced by this commit: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=195133 which was the fix for PR54286.
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a failure
of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the testsuite ...
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/expr.c(revision 201520)
+++ gcc/fortran/expr.c(working copy)
@@ -3581,14 +3581,6 @@ gfc_check_pointer_assign (gfc_expr *lvalue, gfc_ex
return false;
}
- if (!gfc_compare_interfaces (s2, s1, name, 0, 1,
- err, sizeof(err), NULL, NULL))
-{
- gfc_error ("Interface mismatch in procedure pointer assignment "
- "at %L: %s", &rvalue->where, err);
- return false;
-}
-
return true;
}
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #7)
> The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a
> failure of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the testsuite ...
... which can be made up for with this hunk:
Index: gcc/fortran/interface.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/interface.c(revision 201520)
+++ gcc/fortran/interface.c(working copy)
@@ -1416,7 +1416,8 @@ gfc_compare_interfaces (gfc_symbol *s1, gfc_symbol
if (s1->attr.function && s2->attr.function)
{
/* If both are functions, check result characteristics. */
- if (!check_result_characteristics (s1, s2, errmsg, err_len))
+ if (!check_result_characteristics (s1, s2, errmsg, err_len)
+ || !check_result_characteristics (s2, s1, errmsg, err_len))
return 0;
}
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- I have just verified that the combined patches of comment 7 and 8 regtest cleanly.
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #10 from Tobias Burnus ---
(In reply to janus from comment #7)
> The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a
> failure of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the testsuite ...
> - if (!gfc_compare_interfaces (s2, s1, name, 0, 1,
> -err, sizeof(err), NULL, NULL))
> - {
> - gfc_error ("Interface mismatch in procedure pointer assignment "
> - "at %L: %s", &rvalue->where, err);
> - return false;
> - }
Doesn't that remove too much? I had expected some special case for PURE, while
checking otherwise that the interface matches. (Except for the case where the
proc-pointer only has an implicit interface like for "procedure(real)", unless
some characteristic of the RHS requires an explicit interface.)
* * *
Side note: The following compiles but should give an error as the interface
doesn't match. (If one swaps the pure, it does and should compile warning
free.)
subroutine foo()
end
interface
pure subroutine foo()
end subroutine foo
end interface
call foo()
end
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus --- I just saw that Janus has already posted a patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-08/msg00026.html , which is probably sufficient for 4.8. But for 4.9 [at least as follow up], see my previous remarks (comment 10).
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #12 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #10)
> (In reply to janus from comment #7)
> > The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a
> > failure of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the testsuite ...
> > - if (!gfc_compare_interfaces (s2, s1, name, 0, 1,
> > - err, sizeof(err), NULL, NULL))
> > - {
> > - gfc_error ("Interface mismatch in procedure pointer assignment "
> > -"at %L: %s", &rvalue->where, err);
> > - return false;
> > - }
>
>
> Doesn't that remove too much? I had expected some special case for PURE,
> while checking otherwise that the interface matches.
No, I don't think it removes too much. It seems that the other parts of
'gfc_compare_interfaces' are already symmetrized appropriately, expect for the
check on the result characteristics.
> Side note: The following compiles but should give an error as the interface
> doesn't match. (If one swaps the pure, it does and should compile warning
> free.)
>
> subroutine foo()
> end
>
> interface
> pure subroutine foo()
> end subroutine foo
> end interface
> call foo()
> end
Well, it does give the expected warning with the patch:
pure subroutine foo()
1
Warning: Interface mismatch in global procedure 'foo' at (1): Mismatch in PURE
attribute
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #12)
> (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #10)
> > (In reply to janus from comment #7)
> > > The following patch makes the error go away, but (as expected) causes a
> > > failure of proc_ptr_result_8.f90 in the testsuite ...
> > > - if (!gfc_compare_interfaces (s2, s1, name, 0, 1,
> > > -err, sizeof(err), NULL, NULL))
> > > - {
> > > - gfc_error ("Interface mismatch in procedure pointer assignment "
> > > - "at %L: %s", &rvalue->where, err);
> > > - return false;
> > > - }
> >
> >
> > Doesn't that remove too much? I had expected some special case for PURE,
> > while checking otherwise that the interface matches.
>
> No, I don't think it removes too much. It seems that the other parts of
> 'gfc_compare_interfaces' are already symmetrized appropriately, expect for
> the check on the result characteristics.
Here is another recent example where more symmetrization was done (this time in
check_dummy_characteristics):
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=199375
In case we need more symmetrization, it should be done 'locally'. Duplicate
calls of gfc_compare_interfaces to symmetrize it are clearly wrong, as the case
with PURE shows.
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|--- |4.8.2
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #14 from Tobias Burnus --- Janus' submitted patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-08/msg00026.html Looks great and fixes also comment 10's test case. * * * I tried to test for the "intrinsic elemental" of comment 2's standard quote. That works without "elemental" in the INTERFACE but not with. However, the standard states for "acos": "Class. Elemental function." Nonetheless, gfortran prints: Error: Interface mismatch in procedure pointer assignment at (1): Mismatch in PURE attribute" for intrinsic acos interface elemental real function oo(x) ! Works (and should work) without "elemental" real, intent(in) :: x end function end interface procedure(oo),pointer :: bar bar => acos end
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #15 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: janus Date: Fri Sep 20 07:44:05 2013 New Revision: 202766 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202766&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-09-20 Janus Weil PR fortran/58099 * expr.c (gfc_check_pointer_assign): Remove second call to 'gfc_compare_interfaces' with swapped arguments. * interface.c (gfc_compare_interfaces): Symmetrize the call to 'check_result_characteristics' by calling it with swapped arguments. 2013-09-20 Janus Weil PR fortran/58099 * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_43.f90: New. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_43.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/expr.c trunk/gcc/fortran/interface.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #16 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #15) > Author: janus > Date: Fri Sep 20 07:44:05 2013 > New Revision: 202766 This commit fixes the original regression of comment 0 on trunk (backport to 4.8 pending). TODO: Fix also the issue with PURE/ELEMENTAL reported in comment 14.
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #17 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #16)
> TODO: Fix also the issue with PURE/ELEMENTAL reported in comment 14.
Here is a small patch which does it:
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision 202765)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c(working copy)
@@ -1679,6 +1679,11 @@ gfc_resolve_intrinsic (gfc_symbol *sym, locus *loc
gfc_copy_formal_args_intr (sym, isym);
+ if (isym->pure && !gfc_add_pure (&sym->attr, &sym->declared_at))
+return false;
+ if (isym->elemental && !gfc_add_elemental (&sym->attr, &sym->declared_at))
+return false;
+
/* Check it is actually available in the standard settings. */
if (!gfc_check_intrinsic_standard (isym, &symstd, false, sym->declared_at))
{
The PURE and ELEMENTAL properties of the intrinsic procedures were just not
properly propagated during symbol resolution.
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #17)
> (In reply to janus from comment #16)
> > TODO: Fix also the issue with PURE/ELEMENTAL reported in comment 14.
>
> Here is a small patch which does it:
This yields a rather large number of failures in the testsuite, due to errors
of the type:
USE ISO_C_BINDING
1
Error: Cannot change attributes of USE-associated symbol at (1)
This is avoided by the following improved patch (which just 'silently' sets the
attributes):
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c(revision 202765)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c(working copy)
@@ -1679,6 +1679,9 @@ gfc_resolve_intrinsic (gfc_symbol *sym, locus *loc
gfc_copy_formal_args_intr (sym, isym);
+ sym->attr.pure = isym->pure;
+ sym->attr.elemental = isym->elemental;
+
/* Check it is actually available in the standard settings. */
if (!gfc_check_intrinsic_standard (isym, &symstd, false, sym->declared_at))
{
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #18) > This is avoided by the following improved patch (which just 'silently' sets > the attributes): That version still yields a good number of testsuite failures, but it seems like most of them are due to invalid code that was not detected previously: FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_decl_9.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_11.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_12.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_15.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_6.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_common_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_2.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_8.f90 -O (test for excess errors) FAIL: gfortran.dg/sizeof_proc.f90 -O (test for excess errors) So for now I'm assuming the patch is fine. I will go through the above list in detail and update the test cases accordingly.
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #20 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #19) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_1.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) Here one gets: ptr4 => cos 1 Error: Explicit interface required for '' at (1): elemental procedure The error message as such is correct, but: The name of 'ptr4' is not printed!
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #23 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Sat Nov 16 23:13:31 2013
New Revision: 204908
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=204908&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-16 Janus Weil
Backport from mainline
2013-09-20 Janus Weil
PR fortran/58099
* expr.c (gfc_check_pointer_assign): Remove second call to
'gfc_compare_interfaces' with swapped arguments.
* interface.c (gfc_compare_interfaces): Symmetrize the call to
'check_result_characteristics' by calling it with swapped arguments.
2013-11-16 Janus Weil
Backport from mainline
2013-09-20 Janus Weil
PR fortran/58099
* gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_43.f90: New.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_43.f90
- copied unchanged from r202766,
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_43.f90
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/ (props changed)
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/fortran/expr.c
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/fortran/interface.c
branches/gcc-4_8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
Propchange: branches/gcc-4_8-branch/
('svn:mergeinfo' modified)
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #24 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- The original regression has been fixed on trunk and 4.8 with r202766 and r204908, respectively. Still to do: Fix the test case of comment 14, cf. also comment 17 - 20 as well as comment 22.
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099
--- Comment #25 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #22)
> (In reply to janus from comment #19)
> > (In reply to janus from comment #18)
> > That version still yields a good number of testsuite failures, but it seems
> > like most of them are due to invalid code that was not detected previously:
>
> Well, sizeof_proc.f90 looks like a bug in the checking code:
>
> procedure(real), pointer :: pp
> pp => sin
> ! Error: Explicit interface required for '' at (1): elemental procedure
There might be a bug here, but I don't quite follow your argument (see below).
> The quote in comment 2 has: "If proc-pointer-object has an explicit
> interface…" which is not fulfilled as "pp" has an implicit interface.
Agreed. The quote continues "... its characteristics shall be the same as
proc-target except ...". The error is not about the characteristics being
different, but about the target being elemental at all. Everything is fine so
far.
> There is in addition the following constraint, but sin is an intrinsic:
> "C730 (R740) The proc-target shall not be a nonintrinsic elemental
> procedure."
Yes. As you say, this is not applicable here (and is again not what the error
is about). Still everything fine.
The relevant quote for the above error message is F08:12.4.2.2, which says:
" A procedure other than a statement function shall have an explicit interface
if it is referenced and ... (4) the procedure is elemental, or ..."
In our case it applies to the proc-pointer 'pp', which itself is not elemental,
but (validly) points to the elemental intrinsic 'sin'.
Therefore I would say the logic in gfc_check_pointer_assign is wrong after all:
if (s1->attr.if_source == IFSRC_UNKNOWN
&& gfc_explicit_interface_required (s2, err, sizeof(err)))
{
gfc_error ("Explicit interface required for '%s' at %L: %s",
name1, &lvalue->where, err);
I guess we should not require an explicit interface for the pointer, if the
target is elemental. Right?
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #26 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to janus from comment #25) > The relevant quote for the above error message is F08:12.4.2.2, which says: Good pointer, though I am not sure whether it is relevant. Another one is "12.4.3.6 Procedure declaration statement" which is relevant for the interface declaration part of the proc-pointer. * * * With some digging I found 09-166 - but according to the m188 notes no further action is done. And a bit less fitting but with passed J3/WG5, one has: 09-171r1, which got revised as 09-217 and passed the ballot as Interpretation Request F03-0130. See: http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/09/09-217.txt and http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/10/10-006T5r1.txt. >From F03-0130: Q: "When one of these procedures [i.e. the specific intrinsic procedures listed in 13.6 and not marked with a bullet] is associated with a dummy procedure or procedure pointer, does it still have the elemental property?" A: "The specific intrinsic procedure itself retains the elemental property (so a reference using its own name can be elemental), but the dummy procedure or procedure pointer associated with it is not elemental and so cannot be used to reference the specific intrinsic procedure elementally." * * * As far as I can see, it seems to be valid to have: intrinsic :: sin procedure(real), pointer :: pp1 => sin procedure(sin), pointer :: pp2 => sin ! valid per C1216 interface pure function sin_like(x) real, intent(in) :: x end function sin_like end interface procedure(sin_like), pointer :: pp3 => sin But in all cases, the proc-pointer is not elemental. It doesn't seem to be valid to have: interface pure ELEMENTAL function sin_like(x) real, intent(in) :: x end function sin_like end interface procedure(sin_like), pointer :: pp4 => sin But is is valid to have a non-proc-pointer PROCEDURE statement like: procedure(sin_like) :: external_sin_like_function For the latter two, the following applies: "C1218 (R1211) If a proc-interface describes an elemental procedure, each procedure-entity-name shall specify an external procedure." [Side note: We should also check that dummy arguments are correctly handled.]
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #27 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #26) > A: "The specific intrinsic procedure itself retains the elemental property > (so a reference using its own name can be elemental), but the dummy > procedure or procedure pointer associated with it is not elemental and so > cannot be used to reference the specific intrinsic procedure elementally." Thus, the following code is invalid: interface elemental real function x(y) ! Valid external procedure real, intent(in) :: y end function x end interface ! pointer :: x ! < comment aside: this proc-ptr would violate C1218 intrinsic :: sin call foo(sin) contains subroutine foo(z) procedure(x) :: z ! INVALID per C1218 ! procedure(sin) :: z! Valid - but not elemental ... print *, z([1.,2.,3.]) ! ... hence this invalid too for "procedure(sin)::z" end subroutine foo end See also: "12.5.2.9 Actual arguments associated with dummy procedure entities [...] If the interface of a dummy procedure is explicit, its characteristics as a procedure (12.3.1) shall be the same as those of its effective argument, except that a pure effective argument may be associated with a dummy argument that is not pure and an elemental intrinsic actual procedure may be associated with a dummy procedure (which cannot be elemental)." [The parenthesis is a consequence of C1218, see comment 26 for the quote.] Thus: * I think we need a check for elemental as dummy argument and reject it * For the patch (comment 18), I wonder whether whether one should leave out the "elemental" assignment and just do the "pure" assignment.
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #28 from Tobias Burnus --- Author: burnus Date: Sun Dec 8 21:34:18 2013 New Revision: 205791 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205791&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-12-08 Tobias Burnus Janus Weil PR fortran/58099 PR fortran/58676 PR fortran/41724 * resolve.c (gfc_resolve_intrinsic): Set elemental/pure. (resolve_fl_procedure): Reject pure dummy procedures/procedure pointers. (gfc_explicit_interface_required): Don't require a match of ELEMENTAL for intrinsics. 2013-12-08 Tobias Burnus PR fortran/58099 PR fortran/58676 PR fortran/41724 * gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_8.f90: New. * gfortran.dg/proc_decl_9.f90: Add ELEMENTAL to make valid. * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_11.f90: Ditto. * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_8.f90: Ditto. * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_32.f90: Update dg-error. * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_33.f90: Ditto. * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_1.f90: Add abstract interface which is not elemental. * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_7.f90: Ditto. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_8.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_decl_9.f90 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_11.f90 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_32.f90 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_33.f90 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_1.f90 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_7.f90 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_8.f90
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #29 from Tobias Burnus --- I think all issues of the PR are FIXED. The original problem (plus comment 10) seems to be fixed by the commits mentioned in comment 15 (4.9) and - backported to GCC 4.8 - by comment 23. A follow-up issue has been fixed in comment 28. Thus, I close now the PR. Thanks for the bug report Daniel, for the standard quotes Andrew and for the first patch Janus!
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #30 from Daniel Price --- thanks very much for the speedy and professional response Tobias et al! Daniel On 9 Dec 2013, at 8:42 am, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 > > Tobias Burnus changed: > > What|Removed |Added > > Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED > Resolution|--- |FIXED > > --- Comment #29 from Tobias Burnus --- > I think all issues of the PR are FIXED. > > The original problem (plus comment 10) seems to be fixed by the commits > mentioned in comment 15 (4.9) and - backported to GCC 4.8 - by comment 23. > > > A follow-up issue has been fixed in comment 28. > > Thus, I close now the PR. Thanks for the bug report Daniel, for the standard > quotes Andrew and for the first patch Janus! > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug.
[Bug fortran/58099] [4.8/4.9 Regression] [F03] over-zealous procedure-pointer error checking
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58099 --- Comment #31 from Tobias Burnus --- Author: burnus Date: Mon Dec 9 23:17:06 2013 New Revision: 205838 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205838&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2013-12-10 Tobias Burnus PR fortran/59428 PR fortran/58099 PR fortran/58676 PR fortran/41724 * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_4.f90: Fix proc-ptr interface. Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_4.f90
