* [Bug fortran/67744] polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation
2015-09-28 12:23 [Bug fortran/67744] New: polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation Bader at lrz dot de
@ 2015-10-10 8:23 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2015-10-12 19:14 ` Bader at lrz dot de
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2015-10-10 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67744
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2015-10-10
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
I get the compile-time error with 4.8 up to trunk (6.0). Note that code
compiles if I replace the line
call g%write()
with
call write(g)
and outputs "OK" at run time. I get the same result if I add a line
call write(retfoo(op))
but
call retfoo(op)%write()
is rejected with the error
pr67744_db.f90:40:17:
call retfoo(op)%write()
1
Error: Syntax error in CALL statement at (1)
I wonder if 'call g%write()' is valid.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/67744] polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation
2015-09-28 12:23 [Bug fortran/67744] New: polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation Bader at lrz dot de
2015-10-10 8:23 ` [Bug fortran/67744] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2015-10-12 19:14 ` Bader at lrz dot de
2015-10-12 19:15 ` Bader at lrz dot de
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bader at lrz dot de @ 2015-10-12 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67744
--- Comment #2 from Bader at lrz dot de <Bader at lrz dot de> ---
The question on validity is not unjustified. The 2008 standard appears to be
not fully clear on this, but the current 2015 draft has the following amended
text in para 2 of section 8.1.3.3:
---
The associating entity itself is a variable, but if the selector is not a
definable variable, the associating entity is not definable and shall not be
defined or become undefined. If the selector is not permitted to appear in a
variable definition context (16.6.7), the associate name shall not appear in a
variable definition context.
---
The first sentence, I think, implies that my code example is valid.
Cheers
Reinhold
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/67744] polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation
2015-09-28 12:23 [Bug fortran/67744] New: polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation Bader at lrz dot de
2015-10-10 8:23 ` [Bug fortran/67744] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2015-10-12 19:14 ` Bader at lrz dot de
@ 2015-10-12 19:15 ` Bader at lrz dot de
2015-10-13 13:11 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-02-13 11:53 ` [Bug fortran/67744] [OOP] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bader at lrz dot de @ 2015-10-12 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67744
--- Comment #3 from Bader at lrz dot de <Bader at lrz dot de> ---
The question on validity is not unjustified. The 2008 standard appears to be
not fully clear on this, but the current 2015 draft has the following amended
text in para 2 of section 8.1.3.3:
---
The associating entity itself is a variable, but if the selector is not a
definable variable, the associating entity is not definable and shall not be
defined or become undefined. If the selector is not permitted to appear in a
variable definition context (16.6.7), the associate name shall not appear in a
variable definition context.
---
The first sentence, I think, implies that my code example is valid.
Cheers
Reinhold
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/67744] polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation
2015-09-28 12:23 [Bug fortran/67744] New: polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation Bader at lrz dot de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-10-12 19:15 ` Bader at lrz dot de
@ 2015-10-13 13:11 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2021-02-13 11:53 ` [Bug fortran/67744] [OOP] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2015-10-13 13:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67744
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> The first sentence, I think, implies that my code example is valid.
IMO everything is in the "if", but I don't know the answer. Note that this may
be related to pr67743.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug fortran/67744] [OOP] polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation
2015-09-28 12:23 [Bug fortran/67744] New: polymorphic associating entity is refused TBP invocation Bader at lrz dot de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-10-13 13:11 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2021-02-13 11:53 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2021-02-13 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67744
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
This PR is fixed at r11-7225, likely r11-7188. It looks as a duplicate of
pr98897.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 98897 ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread