Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 41873 & 41556

[Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

>>>> here is a patch for PR 41873, which also fixes a part of PR 41556. The
>>>> problem was that a check, which prevents abstract interfaces from
>>>> being called, falsely triggered an error for deferred type-bound
>>>> procedures with abstract interface.
>>>>
>>>> My solution to this may be a bit hackish, but it works very good in
>>>> practice: To distinguish both cases I simply check certain fields,
>>>> which are always set for the TBP case, but not for plain abstract
>>>> interfaces.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the gfc_expr / gfc_code be EXPR_COMPCALL or EXEC_COMPCALL for
>>> TBPs
>>> (with or without abstract interface) as possibility to distinguish these?
>>>
>>> I may be overlooking something here but if it is, I'd strongly prefer you
>>> do
>>> that check instead.
>>
>> That would be cleaner, but I don't think it's possible.
>>
>> For type-bound functions, for example, the EXPR_COMPCALL is
>> transformed into an EXPR_FUNTION in resolve_compcall. For type-bound
>> subroutines, EXEC_COMPCALL is transformed into EXEC_CALL in
>> resolve_typebound_call.
>>
>> Therefore, at the point where the call is resolved, you can't
>> distinguish the two cases just via EXPR_... or EXEC_...
>
> Ok... ?I was not sure about the order of the calls; and I think before the
> introduction of polymorphism (with my old static dispatch implementation)
> the call would then also have been to the "real" procedure without abstract
> interface, so also ok.
>
> But yes, in this case I think it is ok. ?I would maybe add a TODO or like to
> mark this "hack", but your comments are quite clear.
>
> So indeed ok as is.

Thanks. Committed as 153934.

Cheers,
Janus