http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41603
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-14 16:10 ---
Just for completeness: The wording in
J3/04-007 (p. 259, ll. 38-41; 12.3.2.1 Interface block)
and in
J3/97-007r2 (p. 194, ll. 32-34)
is effectively the same. Thus there does not seem to be any change in the
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-07 08:02 ---
More from the thread.
Richard Maine wrote:
The Note appears to have been removed from f2003, but see
F95 Note 5.6. Apparently it was the interface body case I was recalling
rather than the module procedure
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-06 14:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=18725)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18725action=view)
testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41603
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-06 15:01 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
If the latter is the correct reading then one needs to have an implicit
interface with a character length (which is not *, cf. PR 41604), but using
an explicit interface is not allowed.
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-06 14:57 ---
See also PR 41604.
I actually cannot find the spot in the standard which renders this example as
invalid. Reading the following excerpt, I have even the feeling that it is
valid:
A char-length type parameter value
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-10-06 17:55 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
c) If an explicit specific interface is specified by an interface body or a
procedure declaration statement (12.3.2.3) for an external procedure, the
characteristics shall be consistent
