From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20771 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2009 05:01:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 19702 invoked by uid 48); 7 Jul 2009 05:01:01 -0000 Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090707050101.19701.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pault 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00487.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-07 05:01 ------- (In reply to comment #0) > The following program fails with: > > procedure(sub), pointer :: pptr2 > 1 > Error: Interface 'sub' of procedure 'pptr2' at (1) must be explicit > > > The question is whether it is valid or not. As both NAG f95 and ifort reject it > (g95 accepts it), it might be invalid. Although I can find nowhere in the standards that says that it is valid, I believe that by the normal rules of host association of procedures, it must be. gfortran accepts it if 'test' and 'sub' are interchanged. I have put it on my todo list. Cheers Paul -- pault 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 |2009-07-07 05:01:00 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591