From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-421132-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12574 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2013 16:00:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 12531 invoked by uid 48); 28 Apr 2013 16:00:50 -0000
From: "janus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/34004] Accepts invalid: Ambigiuous interface with subroutine.
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 16:00:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-34004-4-fT25QKlIJs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-34004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-34004-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg02277.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34004

janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |janus at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-28 16:00:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> > The test in comment #0 is accepted and outputs:
> > $  ./comment_0
> >            1
> >            2
> > $
> > 
> > Which seems sensible to me.
> 
> Well the program in comment 0 is invalid in Fortran 2003 but valid in Fortran
> 2008 (cf. quotes in comment 0 and comment 5.)
> 
> Thus, we should reject it with -std=f95/f2003 and accept it with -std=f2008 and
> later. (Cf. PR 45521)

Since F08 allows it and the two interfaces in comment 0 are distinguishable by
"common sense", I would say it's not worth to implement any diagnostics for it.
How about counting this as a "bug in the F03 standard" and closing the PR as
invalid (as suggested by Mikael)?