https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Has this patch ever been applied and/or reg-tested?
After a quick look to the sources, the answer is no.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023
--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter ---
Has this patch ever been applied and/or reg-tested?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023
Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
--- Comment #5 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-20 14:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=20444)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20444action=view)
patch
This produces :
pr41023.f90:9.21:
MODULE PROCEDURE myplus
1
Error: Operator
--- Comment #4 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-19 17:58 ---
Probably changed in pr40823.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-18 15:37 ---
Confirmed. Note that between 4.4 and 4.5 the error from the second test of
comment #0 has changed from:
MODULE PROCEDURE myplus
1
Error: Intrinsic operator interface at (1) must be a
--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-10 11:18 ---
The same holds for type-bound operators, see for instance
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_2.f03 for the current
inconsistent locations.
But as the checking code is mainly shared, a fix will probably do
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-08-10 20:54 ---
I think the ifort messages are more helpful:
[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% ifc pr41023.f90
pr41023.f90(14): error #6711: The number of function arguments is inconsistent
with the intrinsic use of the OPERATOR. [MYPLUS]
