[Bug fortran/65825] Cannot change attributes intrinsic

[rofirrim at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65825

Roger Ferrer Ibanez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |INVALID

--- Comment #3 from Roger Ferrer Ibanez  ---
I should have read the standard more carefully. Fortran 2003 draft §11.2.1 says
(similarly in Fortran 95 except for the two new attributes)

  "The local identifier of an entity made accessible by a USE statement shall
not appear in any other nonexecutable statement that would cause any attribute
(5.1.2) of the entity to be specified in the scoping unit that contains the USE
statement, except that it may appear in a PUBLIC or PRIVATE statement in the
scoping unit of a module and it may be given the ASYNCHRONOUS or VOLATILE
attribute."

Also, earlier in §11.2 it says

  "If an intrinsic procedure is declared in the scoping unit of a module, it
shall explicitly be given the INTRINSIC attribute in that scoping unit or be
used as an intrinsic procedure in that scoping unit."

Because of this, I believe gfortran is doing nothing wrong here. I'm closing
this as invalid.

Sorry for the fuss.

Kind regards,
Roger

[Bug fortran/65825] Cannot change attributes intrinsic

[roger.ferrer at bsc dot es]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65825

--- Comment #2 from Roger Ferrer Ibanez  ---
> Well, if so, why are you do you want to declare ubound as intrinsic besides
> pushing gfortran to its limit?

I did not intend to push gfortran anywhere. It actually happened by chance.

Kind regards,

[Bug fortran/65825] Cannot change attributes intrinsic

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65825

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2015-04-21
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Confirmed from 4.4 up to trunk (6.0). Moving the line

INTRINSIC :: ubound ! gfortran rejects this

in MODULE moo works around the problem also.

> I assume that the code is OK since in both cases ubound does not change
> its "intrinsic" meaning.

Well, if so, why are you do you want to declare ubound as intrinsic besides
pushing gfortran to its limit?