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 8F0B43858404; Wed,  9 Aug 2023 15:37:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8F0B43858404
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691595431;
	bh=S9lpIFU06tLLU1wNdT3WtyBJS0YWqLMHATKtQ/1PjzY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=GwH/C2SlLkGZCUHokWCO07Ni52PsoSk03VO/FOubajCfPBtHwyVYozrCH/swZyHGf
	 0GLrHJHqHtkpkATOfv/aVilE9LGKdp1joX+31c6M9IiNf9H/MyN+3oIrut2uK7VD8L
	 0Rqtit3lqPQAyNeNUEmfpYziqPNytxKLVnXD1rlk=
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <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 15:37:11 +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: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
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-x7Q6dBCEEp@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 #21 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> =
---
On Wed, Aug 09, 2023 at 10:08:45AM +0000, trnka at scm dot com wrote:
>=20
> --- 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?
>=20
> On our codebase, this patch behaves just like the patch in comment #5, in=
 that
> it also triggers the issue described in comment #7 (assert in a warning a=
bout
> non-recursive procedures getting called recursively).
>=20
> Does either of you have any idea as to what that issue could be about? Or=
 is
> isolating a testcase our only hope?

I missed your comment #7 as simply grabbed the "slightly
more simplified" attachment and started a bug hunt from there.
Do either of the other testcase attachments exhibit the issue?

The code in class.cc(generate_finalization_wrapper) sets=20

  final->attr.pure =3D 0;
  final->attr.recursive =3D 1;
  final->attr.artificial =3D 1;


for the artificial __final_* wrapper function.  So, the routine
should be recursive.=