https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96320
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
This patch
Index: gcc/fortran/resolve.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/resolve.c (revision 280157)
+++ gcc/fortran/resolve.c (working copy)
@@ -13242,7 +13254,7 @@ resolve_fl_procedure (gfc_symbol *sym, int mp_flag)
check_formal:
/* Check the characteristics of the formal arguments. */
- if (sym->formal && sym->formal_ns)
+ if (sym->formal && iface->formal && sym->formal_ns)
{
for (arg = sym->formal; arg && arg->sym; arg = arg->next)
{
allows Damian's example to compile without error.
Damian's use of 'module precedure' is backwards from the way I
use it. That is, I use it to construct generic interfaces
like
module foo
private
public bar
interface bar ! Make bar generic
module procedure bar1
module procedure bar2
end interface
contains
subroutine bar1(x)
real x
end subroutine bar1
subroutine bar2(x)
double precision x
end subroutine bar2
end module foo
It seems strange to me to put a subroutine interface in
an interface construct, and then in the 'contain' section of
a module simply using 'module procedure bar' where there are
no details of the interface and implementation details occur.
I do not know if the patch permits valid Fortran to compile,
nor I have regression tested the patch, nor do I care.
