[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476

--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> 2012-01-28 21:51:33 UTC ---
> Additionally, it needs to pass some more review (J3 and then WG5). Current
> STATUS: J3 consideration in progress

Any progress three years later?

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476

Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #8 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-28 22:32:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Any progress three years later?

Yes, F2008 got released and has a slightly different wording. In F2003:

"This subclause contains the rules that shall be satisfied by every pair of
specific procedures that have the same generic identifier within a scoping
unit."

while F2008 has:

"This subclause contains the rules that shall be satis\fed by every pair of
specific procedures that have the same generic identi\fer within the scope of
the identifier."

See also http://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/11/11-219r1.txt

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2009-12-17 22:50:41
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-02-11 15:36 -------
See: http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/187/09-006A.txt
and there "NUMBER: F03/0116". One now only needs to carefully read the text to
understand the interpretation.

Additionally, it needs to pass some more review (J3 and then WG5). Current
STATUS: J3 consideration in progress


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-12 10:33 -------
> Where are we at with the J3 discussion?

Sun requested a formal interpretation:
http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2008-March/001207.html

Read on there. At some point there will be a formal reply by J3; if textual
changes are needed, it will go through WG5 and ISO.

Snapshot:
- Bob of Sun: Thinks it should be valid according the intent of the standard,
  but it is invalid by words of the standard
- Bill of Cray: Thinks it is invalid (and no exception should be added)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-15 22:40 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > - openf95 and sunf95 reject it
> > - ifort, gfortran, NAG f95, and g95 accept it
> > Bill Long writes that he tested two non-Sun compilers, of which two gave an
> > error and two did not.
> 
> For what it's worth, the IBM compiler also accepts it. (Now, which is the
> second non-Sun compiler that rejects it?)
> 

Where are we at with the J3 discussion?  I rather think that it is a bug....

Paul


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-07 12:03 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> - openf95 and sunf95 reject it
> - ifort, gfortran, NAG f95, and g95 accept it
> Bill Long writes that he tested two non-Sun compilers, of which two gave an
> error and two did not.

For what it's worth, the IBM compiler also accepts it. (Now, which is the
second non-Sun compiler that rejects it?)


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-06 07:00 -------
Thread starts here: http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2008-March/001103.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476

[Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-05 22:05 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> Found the following on the J3 Fortran list. I think the program below is
> invalid for the reasons given by Bill Long, but it has not finally decided yet
> (on J3). (The question/program comes from Sun)

This worries me a lot.  If you recall, I did a lot of work on this and you
acted as reviewer/collaborator.  We concluded that, in general, the precedence
rules should be accomplished without warnings or errors.  Several of the
exmaples in the standard guided us in this.

I'll go and look at the correspondence.

Paul who is still struggling and losing the fight with memory leaks in
allocatable components.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476