From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.95.76.21]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04AD83858CDA; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 18:11:11 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 04AD83858CDA Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=troutmask.apl.washington.edu Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=troutmask.apl.washington.edu Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 36SIBAO6041131 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 36SIBAe3041130; Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 11:11:10 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Harald Anlauf via Fortran Cc: gcc-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fortran: do not pass hidden character length for TYPE(*) dummy [PR110825] Message-ID: Reply-To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 09:39:53PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: > Dear all, > > when passing a character actual argument to an assumed-type dummy > (TYPE(*)), we should not pass the character length for that argument, > as otherwise other hidden arguments that are passed as part of the > gfortran ABI will not be interpreted correctly. This is in line > with the current way the procedure decl is generated. > > The attached patch fixes the caller and clarifies the behavior > in the documentation. > > Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? > OK. Patch looks small enough that if you are so inclined to backport that's ok as well. Thanks for the quick response. -- Steve