From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
Received: from cc-smtpout3.netcologne.de (cc-smtpout3.netcologne.de
 [89.1.8.213])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30DCA3858D1E;
 Tue,  5 Apr 2022 19:15:42 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 30DCA3858D1E
Received: from cc-smtpin1.netcologne.de (cc-smtpin1.netcologne.de [89.1.8.201])
 by cc-smtpout3.netcologne.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 861CD125EC;
 Tue,  5 Apr 2022 21:15:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPV6:2001:4dd7:ec41:0:7285:c2ff:fe6c:992d]
 (2001-4dd7-ec41-0-7285-c2ff-fe6c-992d.ipv6dyn.netcologne.de
 [IPv6:2001:4dd7:ec41:0:7285:c2ff:fe6c:992d])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by cc-smtpin1.netcologne.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F67F11DF9;
 Tue,  5 Apr 2022 21:15:38 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <0c4a7fa6-c846-09d1-d6fd-e048e44736ca@netcologne.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 21:15:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR fortran/105138 - Bogus error when function name does
 not shadow an intrinsic when RESULT clause is used
Content-Language: en-US
To: Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>, fortran <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>,
 gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <trinity-ebbd7d53-5aea-4edb-9a6a-63b135187bbf-1649099076833@3c-app-gmx-bs58>
From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>
In-Reply-To: <trinity-ebbd7d53-5aea-4edb-9a6a-63b135187bbf-1649099076833@3c-app-gmx-bs58>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-NetCologne-Spam: L
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2F67F11DF9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
 SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: fortran@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Fortran mailing list <fortran.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/fortran>,
 <mailto:fortran-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/>
List-Help: <mailto:fortran-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fortran>,
 <mailto:fortran-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 19:15:43 -0000

Hi Harald,

> Steve's analysis (see PR) showed that we confused the case when a
> symbol refererred to a recursive procedure which was named the same
> as an intrinsic.  The standard allows such recursive references
> (see e.g. F2018:19.3.1).
> 
> The attached patch is based on Steve's, but handles both functions
> and subroutines.  Testcase verified with NAG and Crayftn.
> 
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.  OK for mainline?
> 
> This bug is a rejects-valid, but could also lead to wrong code,
> see e.g. the PR, comment#4.  Would this qualify for a backport
> to e.g. the 11-branch?

OK for both.

Thanks for the patch!

Best regards

	Thomas