Hi Tobias,
Please go ahead and commit the patch. I think that your analysis is correct
about expr_null and that your patch is the best way to deal with the
problem.
Best regards
Paul
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 17:54, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> On 23.03.21 18:34, Paul Richard Thomas
Hi Paul,
On 23.03.21 18:34, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
I took something of a detour in reviewing this patch. Although short,
understanding it is not straightforward!
I concur – and as I wrote both in the patch email and in the PR, it is
not straight forward which message is showing with which
Cancel the thought on my patchlet null_5.f90 fails on excess errors.
Paul
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 17:34, Paul Richard Thomas <
paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tobias,
>
> I took something of a detour in reviewing this patch. Although short,
> understanding it is not straightforward!
Hi Tobias,
I took something of a detour in reviewing this patch. Although short,
understanding it is not straightforward!
Your patch works as advertised and regtests OK (with the patch for PR93660
on board as well). Is NULL the only case where this can happen?
Just to aid my understanding, I
See PR for some analysis. The problem is that during
gfc_intrinsic_func_interface, sym->attr.flavor == FL_PROCEDURE,
hence, attr.intrinsic is not set – but later when parsing
'null()', gfortran calls:
if (sym->attr.proc != PROC_INTRINSIC
&& !(sym->attr.use_assoc && sym->attr.intrinsic)
