From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-375283-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9132 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2011 14:44:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 9123 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2011 14:44:39 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:44:26 +0000
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/51268] [Regression] A subroutine can not know anymore its own interface
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:24:00 -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:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status Resolution
Message-ID: <bug-51268-4-1I3dY4SG7D@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51268-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51268-4@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
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: 2011-11/txt/msg02779.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51268

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX

--- Comment #11 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-11-29 14:44:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> I would say that although I partially disagree the choices made in the Fortran
> Standards in this context, gfortran is not to blame here. So I think this "bug"
> can be closed.

Well, it (and the other compilers) could still be blamed for not implementing
submodules earlier. (For instance, the authors of "Fortran 95/2003 explained"
assumed that it would get implemented before most of the Fortran 2003 features.
As it turned out, it gets implemented as one of the later Fortran 2008 (!)
features.)

CLOSED bug.