From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23874 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2010 07:17:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 23813 invoked by uid 48); 16 Jul 2010 07:17:04 -0000 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 07:17:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100716071704.23812.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/33097] Function decl trees without proper argument list 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: 2010-07/txt/msg01675.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 07:17 ------- (In reply to comment #15) > By now we have proper whole-file checking. Is this PR still relevant? I think it is - though there should be some PR about it. The correct way is to construct the dummy argument list from the actual argument list. For procedures, where the explicit interface is known, this is not an issue, but those with implicit interface ("EXTERNAL") it is. Additionally, one can improve the diagnostic as conflicting use of such procedures can be diagnosed. Cf. PR 40976. I thought there was another PR, but I cannot find it at the moment. -- burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|WAITING |NEW Last reconfirmed|2007-08-20 14:47:58 |2010-07-16 07:17:03 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33097