From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24B133858C52; Tue, 5 Apr 2022 01:12:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 24B133858C52 Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id f3so10640531pfe.2; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 18:12:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=zaXITErFv1Dp+mNTH17iHkupXhsTCHrXk783BeoMUIg=; b=t+tSx4XLF/bWna2LfmnLnh9Ea1WXVk6k5SoMRPkR0XGTILcnFFBDd7sKziZF9VVw8f X8Cy9SJDQjwgWWRf/qXWFUWKF3SWVBANCCTJroWiqmjN9G+i46BGUVuhPn6Wc2e9we7H KHEoeMkcAipmO+xNu5RCgsN92vOF5SG9vtRoe0bcHT/Iq2SFPjLyV4pLOF36ouBGOqVh ivevgdhBcBELR+ePQZxY9fv0FjgWRP8cdtQ3XbTeSburk+lfkIjtsbozI4aZDlzSINyd M8rwuM2wxn33lGk/dWBgLh5JDSxmtI5t8laPfYBy5tehtO8qhZOHa+npbUwX0kv3D9Gm sxIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Xch5jZfZtuqtUQZf7iZXo+7ooZiVhfp9vAKjfKxOsIM0coBf7 eBCAuzb2uXj1OVixuRy5KNQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxZTXXghEMjcpP323uzGrgstQ208e0cJDRargxunyqlVhDnt59BqfBtv+BwDvKB1wBXO8006Q== X-Received: by 2002:a63:ba07:0:b0:382:4739:8941 with SMTP id k7-20020a63ba07000000b0038247398941mr762305pgf.293.1649121123038; Mon, 04 Apr 2022 18:12:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.28] ([50.46.203.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id lr6-20020a17090b4b8600b001c7730210e5sm338668pjb.6.2022.04.04.18.12.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Apr 2022 18:12:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <63155b87-8c5c-f16e-0064-3baac3042449@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 18:12:00 -0700 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 , fortran , gcc-patches References: From: Jerry D In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 01:12:07 -0000 On 4/4/22 12:04 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: > Dear all, > > 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? > > Thanks, > Harald > Yes, looks good, OK to commit Regards, Jerry