From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-404910-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26601 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2012 17:38:49 -0000
Received: (qmail 26548 invoked by uid 48); 27 Oct 2012 17:38:35 -0000
From: "Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/55099] Surprising but valid 'PROCEDURE attribute conflicts with INTENT attribute' error
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 17:38:00 -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: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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-55099-4-EMBdtfMXIa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55099-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55099-4@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: 2012-10/txt/msg02586.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55099

Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |Joost.VandeVondele at mat
                   |                            |dot ethz.ch

--- Comment #2 from Joost VandeVondele <Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch> 2012-10-27 17:38:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> How about the following (which of course implies that the users didn't intent
> to use an array - if they did, Intel's becomes more helpful.)

Indeed, I was coding this with the intent of declaring it as an array, no
doubt, passing an array is much more common than passing a procedure. Note that
intel's location is also more useful in that case. I think the usefulness of
Intel's message lies in the fact that it suggests the common cause of the
error. Even with the experience I have, I first started to look for a procedure
with the same name as the variable.