From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-287468-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13601 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2009 17:07:30 -0000
Received: (qmail 11221 invoked by uid 48); 29 Jun 2009 17:07:08 -0000
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:07:00 -0000
Subject: [Bug fortran/40591]  New: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is indirectly hostassociated
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
Message-ID: <bug-40591-13404@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
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
X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg02120.txt.bz2

The following program fails with:

    procedure(sub), pointer :: pptr2
                                    1
Error: Interface 'sub' of procedure 'pptr2' at (1) must be explicit


The question is whether it is valid or not. As both NAG f95 and ifort reject it
(g95 accepts it), it might be invalid.


However, if one uncomments pptr1: gfortran, NAG f95 and g95 accept pptr1 and
pptr2 -- while ifort continues to reject pptr2 only. Thus it might be valid at
the end.


program main
!  procedure(sub), pointer :: pptr1
!  nullify (pptr1)
contains
  subroutine test()
    procedure(sub), pointer :: pptr2
    nullify (pptr2)
  end subroutine test
  subroutine sub()
  end subroutine sub
end program main


-- 
           Summary: Procedure(interface): Rejected if interface is
                    indirectly hostassociated
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: rejects-valid
          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=40591