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 182313858D35; Mon,  8 May 2023 01:16:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 182313858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683508576;
	bh=//2Vf2j3sbJTCUjIN/BQd0XKXrFIJ6ERKhTIc1Z6fXA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=DpZjoAJQwKt1xj2cFaeH4tYphBosolu021pPbOOH+UVEhSH+cDGa3mtF3S8JnKE0u
	 PbpO3AY/GAxhTC6gC9D1MwF5xLv5Hl36x2iNe7zNpTYHHbfzhIJS12odfn2nvELe8R
	 lIYQaSI5KCBWcH4r8pW3kIx8d5bxBx/29UHgUyS4=
From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/97122] Spurious FINAL ... must be in the specification
 part of a MODULE
Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 01:16:15 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-97122-4-Sca7ZT42hx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-97122-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-97122-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D97122

--- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #7)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> > (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #3)
> > >=20
> > > I have marked this as "waiting" pending a contrary interpretation.
> > >=20
> > > Cheers
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Paul,
> >=20
> > I asked on the J3 mailing list about the code.
> >=20
> > https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2023-May/014193.html
>=20
> I haven't had a response from a current member of J3.  Bob Corbett,
> a former member, believes the code is valid Fortran.  Jeff Hammond
> notes that Cray Fortran compiled the code.  So, we have Cray, Intel
> compile the code.  NAG and gfortran reject it.  I'm not sure if there
> are any other compilers with submodule support.

Malcolm Cohen from NAG has responded in the J3 list
that it's a bug in nagfor, and the code in the bug
report is conforming Fortran.=