This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] PRs 70031 and 69524 - submodule tweaks
- From: Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at charter dot net>
- To: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>, "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Damian Rouson <damian at sourceryinstitute dot org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 15:47:38 -0800
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PRs 70031 and 69524 - submodule tweaks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGkQGi+OO0OuXDN0Q0j8tZor0YCYjwi-9bKm=_CScGRbswXHaQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 03/06/2016 10:18 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> These are two rather trivial modifications to permit, 'module' to
> appear at any position in the list of prefixes in the procedure
> declaration and to allow module procedures to appear within a module
> contains section. I was rather astonished at this latter since it does
> seem to be rather contrary to having an module interface declaration
> for the same procedure. However, from the Fortran 2008 standard:
>
> C1247 (R1225) MODULE shall appear only in the function-stmt or
> subroutine-stmt of a module subprogram or of a nonabstract interface
> body that is declared in the scoping unit of a module or submodule.
>
> Whilst I was about it, I prevented an ICE from occurring following the
> error generated by decl.c(copy_prefix), when prefixes in the interface
> are repeated in the procedure declaration. I have not included a test
> for this, since I am not convinced that repeating the prefixes is
> strictly speaking an error. In fact, it would make a lot of sense to
> repeat the interface declaration completely in the submodule
> declaration. I will investigate further before committing. The fix is
> even more trivial than preventing the ICE.
>
> Since the patch is entirely permissive, it will not prevent correct
> code from compiling. In this sense, it is safe for stage 4.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on FC21/x86_64. OK for trunk?
>
> Best regards
>
> Paul
>
OK Paul, thanks for work.
Jerry