This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [Patch, Fortran, F03] PR 51081: Proc-pointer assignment: Rejects valid internal proc

From: Mikael Morin <mikael dot morin at sfr dot fr>
To: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Cc: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at netcologne dot de>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 17:04:21 +0200
Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran, F03] PR 51081: Proc-pointer assignment: Rejects valid internal proc
References: <CAKwh3qjT9dxwbs1uWgekMxVVB7uJCGgxXSk9bvXkkm_ACkLNVg@mail.gmail.com> <5015372F.5080507@netcologne.de> <CAKwh3qjyT93bcHUgu66=k72QFvDqjkP6xMnanFLivcto_N_FXw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

Your patch looks pretty conservative, innocent and all.
However...

On 29/07/2012 16:07, Janus Weil wrote:
> However, the first question for me is: Are cases like pr39937.f really
> valid? Since the test case is short, I will just paste it here in
> unmodified form:
> 

... for me the first question is: how is that testcase currently
handled, and why does your patch changes that. It doesn't seem to change
intrinsicness, nor change the order in which implicit types and
interfaces are handled, nor introduce new diagnostics; so what leads to
the regression?

Mikael

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Patch, Fortran, F03] PR 51081: Proc-pointer assignment: Rejects valid internal proc
  - From: Janus Weil

References:
- [Patch, Fortran, F03] PR 51081: Proc-pointer assignment: Rejects valid internal proc
  - From: Janus Weil
- Re: [Patch, Fortran, F03] PR 51081: Proc-pointer assignment: Rejects valid internal proc
  - From: Thomas Koenig
- Re: [Patch, Fortran, F03] PR 51081: Proc-pointer assignment: Rejects valid internal proc
  - From: Janus Weil

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]