From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26034 invoked by alias); 25 May 2008 17:12:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 25011 invoked by uid 48); 25 May 2008 17:11:48 -0000 Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 17:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080525171148.25010.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/36325] specific or generic INTERFACE implies the EXTERNAL attribute 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: 2008-05/txt/msg01865.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-25 17:11 ------- > Which leads me to think we should probably implement this (for the case that > the interface is explicit). Or is there any good reason that this is not done? Well, regarding the reason: Before interfaces had no EXTERNAL attribute and those procedures with EXTERNAL attribute had no explicit interface. That interfaces have the EXTERNAL attribute only needed for procedure pointers. One could think of not giving the EXTERNAL attribute to procedures declared in interface bodies and modifying POINTER / the pointer resolution only. I'm not sure what is cleaner and simpler. Regarding our questions, Richard Maine (mostly) answered them. See URL in comment #3. conf2(external,dimension) is in any case wrong. It should be: conflict(external with implicit interface, dimension) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36325