* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-07 5:01 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-08 4:38 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-07 5:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-07 5:01 ` [Bug fortran/40591] " pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-08 4:38 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-08 9:48 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-08 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 04:38 -------
Subject: Bug 40591
Author: pault
Date: Wed Jul 8 04:38:06 2009
New Revision: 149362
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149362
Log:
2008-07-08 Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/40591
* decl.c (match_procedure_interface): Correct the association
or creation of the interface procedure's symbol.
2008-07-08 Paul Thomas <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/40591
* gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_21.f90: New test.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_21.f90
Modified:
trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fortran/decl.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-07 5:01 ` [Bug fortran/40591] " pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-08 4:38 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-08 9:48 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-08 11:47 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (7 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-08 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 09:48 -------
Well..... I suppose that I should accept the bug :-)
I will commit the fix to 4.4 over the weekend, so please try to test it to
destruction on 4.5.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2009-07-07 05:01:00 |2009-07-08 09:48:15
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-08 9:48 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-08 11:47 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-07-08 12:37 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2009-07-08 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-07-08 11:47 -------
It seems that gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_21.f90 is failing on i686-pc-linux-gnu and
Intel64(?), see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-07/msg00755.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-07/msg00078.html
--
dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-08 11:47 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-07-08 12:37 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-08 13:28 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-08 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 12:37 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> It seems that gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_21.f90 is failing on i686-pc-linux-gnu and
> Intel64(?), see
I can - somewhat - reproduce it. It does not fail but valgrind shows
(x86-64-linux and i686-linux):
==32231== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==32231== at 0x80485A2: test.1513 (proc_ptr_21.f90:26)
==32231== by 0x8048548: MAIN__ (proc_ptr_21.f90:8)
==32231== by 0x80485F4: main (proc_ptr_21.f90:8)
That is solved by adding:
i = 0
to subroutine test (while any other number causes the abortion).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-08 12:37 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-08 13:28 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-07-08 13:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
` (4 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-08 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 13:28 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> That is solved by adding:
> i = 0
> to subroutine test (while any other number causes the abortion).
>
Indeed - that was in the test originally; I do not know what happened to it.
I'll put it right tonight.
Thanks
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-08 13:28 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-07-08 13:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
2009-07-20 9:24 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr @ 2009-07-08 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-07-08 13:31 -------
pr40683 is a duplicate.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-08 13:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
@ 2009-07-20 9:24 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-07 20:31 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: janus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-20 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-20 09:24 -------
I guess everything is fixed now. Can we close this PR?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-07-20 9:24 ` janus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-07 20:31 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-08 14:06 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-10 16:46 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-07 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 20:30 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> I guess everything is fixed now. Can we close this PR?
Ping?
--
dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-07 20:31 ` dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-08 14:06 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-10 16:46 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-08 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-08 14:05 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > I guess everything is fixed now. Can we close this PR?
>
> Ping?
>
Note that I did not apply the patch to 4.4 as I said that I would. What do you
think?
Cheers
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/40591] Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
2009-06-29 17:07 [Bug fortran/40591] New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-08 14:06 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-07-10 16:46 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
10 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-07-10 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-10 16:46 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> Note that I did not apply the patch to 4.4 as I said that I would. What do you
> think?
4.4 is sufficiently different from 4.5/6 that I am closing this as fixed.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40591
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread