From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 478D53858D33; Wed,  9 Aug 2023 10:08:47 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 478D53858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691575727;
	bh=ljUCp1vSqpnrRwxh9RTaWkmENQMfmsgc4JAuH9d6m1A=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=QuZUhMTM4K7NiASV2ZcAX8G15cfBDuvqMVJ2dk1DXyqzoDteOU4Q/gKQAySv9KySd
	 +fNSlcQ2lglv4449mvi3vokQCSLB9n1dKR5a5sBrC1W6wxjueCETXGQdGJ/imUl0rm
	 CTnOMLKcnDzpIaY92q8GKbqsoN4YWdkxwy6TMhFo=
From: "trnka at scm dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/109684] compiling failure: complaining about a final
 subroutine of a type being not PURE (while it is indeed PURE)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2023 10:08:45 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.1.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: trnka at scm dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109684-4-3XcHkdy412@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109684-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109684-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109684

--- Comment #17 from Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Trnka <trnka at scm dot com> ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #10)
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> index 3cd470ddcca..b0bb8bc1471 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> @@ -17966,7 +17966,9 @@ resolve_types (gfc_namespace *ns)
>=20=20
>    for (n =3D ns->contained; n; n =3D n->sibling)
>      {
> -      if (gfc_pure (ns->proc_name) && !gfc_pure (n->proc_name))
> +      if (gfc_pure (ns->proc_name)
> +	  && !gfc_pure (n->proc_name)
> +	  && !n->proc_name->attr.artificial)
>  	gfc_error ("Contained procedure %qs at %L of a PURE procedure must "
>  		   "also be PURE", n->proc_name->name,
>  		   &n->proc_name->declared_at);
>=20
> pault, dos the above look correct?

On our codebase, this patch behaves just like the patch in comment #5, in t=
hat
it also triggers the issue described in comment #7 (assert in a warning abo=
ut
non-recursive procedures getting called recursively).

Does either of you have any idea as to what that issue could be about? Or is
isolating a testcase our only hope?=