https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556
--- Comment #20 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> --- On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 07:43:54PM +0000, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556 > > --- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #18) > > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14) > > > The current solution is a bit annoying for implicitly-derived interfaces. > > > > > > Consider a code like: > > > > > > module foo > > > implicit none > > > type t1 > > > integer :: i = 1 > > > end type t1 > > > type t2 > > > integer :: j = 2 > > > end type t2 > > > contains > > > subroutine s1 (x) > > > type(t1) :: x > > > call my_mpi_bcast_wrapper (x, storage_size (x)/8) > > > end subroutine s1 > > > subroutine s2 (y) > > > type(t2) :: y > > > call my_mpi_bcast_wrapper (y, storage_size (y)/8) > > > end subroutine s2 > > > end module foo > > > > > > That's perfectly legal, > > > > This is illegal, as far as I know. The type names are different, > > which makes them different types. > > Of course the types are different - that's the point! > > The above is an attempt to extract a self-contained example demonstrating > what does happen in real-world codes using MPI. You can convert it to the > real thing yourself (see e.g. man mpi_bcast). > From the Fortran standard (actually 18-007r1.pdf), page 304. 15.5.2.4 Ordinary dummy variables 2 The dummy argument shall be type compatible with the actual argument. How can the dummy argument be type compatiable with two distinct different types for the actual arguments x and y in your example?
