Hi Harald, >From a very quick perusal of the F2018 standard, I have come to the tentative conclusion that: (i) 'real module function realg (arg1, arg2)' is almost certainly a correct requirement, although both flang-new and gfortran compile happily without the module attribute; and (ii) As far as I can tell, repeating the public attribute in the generic statement is OK. Again flang-new accepts it but, as you say, ifx does not. I must move nagfor to my new machine.
I will take a further look at the standard tonight. Thanks Paul On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 at 21:29, Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Paul! > > Am 24.07.25 um 08:07 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas: > > I forgot to include subroutine tests. Please find attached the patch with > > updated testcases. > > > > Paul > > > > On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 at 17:53, Paul Richard Thomas < > > paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> The attached implements the F2018 generic statement, which has the same > >> semantics as the typebound version but can appear in any specification > >> statement. > >> > >> As it says in the first comment in the patch, use is made of the > existing, > >> typebound matching functions to obtain access-spec and generic-spec. > After > >> this the standard INTERFACE machinery is used. > >> > >> I spent a stupidly long time allowing the mixing of generic statements > >> with generic interfaces until I realised that I was accepting > ST_GENERIC in > >> the wrong place in parse_spec :-( > >> > >> Regtests on x86_64/FC42 - OK for mainline? > >> > >> Paul > >> > >> > > The patch looks basically OK, although I stumbled across the following: > > - testing the testcase with ifx and NAG (both of which required > commenting the generic within the block, probably a bug in both), > I needed to change in submodule subm the declaration > > real function realg (arg1, arg2) > > to > > real module function realg (arg1, arg2) > > otherwise they both complained. Can you comment? > > - I am a little confused about the handling of the access specification. > After the first "public :: g", NAG complains about the > > generic, public :: g ... > > and only allows > > generic :: g ... > > Then duplicate public specifications are not allowed. What do you think? > > Thanks, > Harald > >
