From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 777C1385803D; Sat,  2 Jan 2021 20:50:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 777C1385803D
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/96986] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Explicit interface
 required: volatile argument for ENTRY subroutine
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 20:50:31 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 8.3.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-96986-4-nMEuVg5z08@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96986-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96986-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 20:50:31 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96986

--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> -=
--
On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 07:53:17PM +0000, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96986
>=20
> --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> >    If the ENTRY statement is in a subroutine subprogram, an additional
> >    subroutine is defined by that subprogram.  The name of the subroutine
> >    is entry-name. The dummy arguments of the subroutine are those
> >    specified in the ENTRY statement
>=20
> Well, I stumbled over the "additional subroutine".
>=20
> I assume that the "additional subroutine" wouldn't exist without the cont=
aining
> subprogram in the first place.  Maybe a consultation of c.l.f. could help.
>=20

Not sure what you think clf will provide.  Seems clear to me that

subroutine volatile_test()
   integer, volatile :: va
   entry fun_a()
   return
   entry fun_b(va)
      call fun_c()
   return
end subroutine volatile_test

is equivalent

subroutine volatile_test()
   integer, volatile :: va
   return
      call fun_c()
   return
end subroutine volatile_test

subroutine fun_a()
   integer, volatile :: va
   return
      call fun_c()
   return
end subroutine fun_a()

subroutine fun_b(va)
   integer, volatile :: va
   call fun_c()
   return
end subroutine fun_b=20

Here, only fun_b() requires an explicit interface if it is
used in another scoping unit.  AFAICT, a programmer is=20=20
required to add=20

interface
   subroutine fun_b(va)
      integer, volatile :: va
   end subroutine fun_b
end interface

to that scoping unit.=