From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1443 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2008 18:50:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 30799 invoked by uid 48); 9 Apr 2008 18:49:31 -0000 Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080409184931.30798.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/35831] Type-mismatch check missing for dummy procedure argument In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00735.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-09 18:49 ------- > In this test case both arrays are explicit-sized, and even have the same size, > but their upper and lower bounds are shifted. gfortran currently does not even > check if both arrays have the same size, only their ranks are compared. I think procedures with explicit-shape arguments with the same shape/size but only different bounds should be conformable. The only real problem is assumed-shape vs. the rest (explict, assumed-size, ...). Ok, if an explicit size is given, the sizes should match, but arguments of the dummy/actual function like "integer :: foo(*)" and bar(1:2) and foobar(3000:3001) should all be conformable. Similarly, I think, also foo(1:), bar(:) and foobar(-300:) should be conformable. (I cannot really pinpoint it in the standard, but I'm convinced that this is the case; when I have time, I will re-read the standard and try to produce a proper reference.) * I use "manner" as "kind" and "type" have a special Fortran meaning. -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2008-04-09 18:49:31 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35831