public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/20896] [4.2 and 4.1 only] ambiguous interface not detected
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:55:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070131095511.30710.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-20896-6642@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #7 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-01-31 09:55 -------
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00145.html
> Do we have consensus yet on this?
> The standard is not exactly straight forward interpret.

I'm not 100% sure. The standard is indeed not very clear about it.
My feeling is that the standard forbids some of the things on the basis that
the compiler is not required to check those, but I should study the patch and
the standard again.

With the patch the following is not ambiguous:

+     SUBROUTINE s2(p2)
+       interface
+         function p2 ()
+           real p2
+         end
+       end interface
+     END
+     SUBROUTINE s1(p1)
+       external p1
+     END

This is based on the following: the first one is a function (well, that's
obvious) and the second one is a subroutine. But is this indeed clear?
Without IMPLICIT NONE the second could be equally well a real function, or do I
miss something subtle?


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |burnus at net-b dot de


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20896


  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-01-31  9:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-20896-6642@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2006-12-26 14:38 ` [Bug fortran/20896] " patchapp at dberlin dot org
2006-12-27 13:47 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-27 16:38 ` [Bug fortran/20896] [4.2 and 4.1 only] " pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-02 14:23 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-03 18:05 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2007-01-21 20:41 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-31  9:55 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2007-05-10 22:21 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-08-16 11:50 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-08-20  3:48 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-14 12:26 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-12-17 18:05 ` [Bug fortran/20896] " dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-14 14:50 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-04-14 15:05 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20070131095511.30710.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).