[Bug fortran/35913] New: INTRINISIC vs. host-associated procedures (check conformance)

[Bug fortran/35913] New: INTRINISIC vs. host-associated procedures (check conformance)

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

This is in a way a follow up to PR 35476. This PR is a reminder that we should
check whether gfortran behaves correctly or not; the thread became twisted
enough and contains too many similar but different test cases that I could not
quickly see this.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/8bc064b25f12ed91


-- 
           Summary: INTRINISIC vs. host-associated procedures (check
                    conformance)
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.4.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35913

[Bug fortran/35913] INTRINISIC vs. host-associated procedures (check conformance)

[pault at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-12-17 20:51 -------
I believe that gfortran behaves correctly in all the testcases in this thread. 
I have written to Bob Corbet to see if he agrees.  The nub of the matter is
that a local declaration always has precedence over a host associated one.

My inclination is to close the PR unless Bob disagrees.

Cheers

Paul


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35913

[Bug fortran/35913] INTRINISIC vs. host-associated procedures (check conformance)

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-12-17 23:07 -------
I think that at the current result of gfortran is OK. However, I think a proper
way would to send an interpretation request as we did before (PR39997, PR
40264). The question seems to be whether it is valid at all and, if so, which
interpretation is correct. I think we have at least two or three examples which
should be part in an interpretation request.

(I have filled PR 42418 for some issues found when testing the code in James
last post, which is a bit unrelated to this PR.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35913