Testers needed for ISO C Binding patch

[Tobias Schlüter]

Christopher D. Rickett wrote:
>>> +  /* Initialize the derived type as being C interoperable.
>>> +     If we find an error in the components, this will be set false.  */
>>> +  derived_sym->ts.is_c_interop = 1;
>>> +  +  /* Loop through the list of components to verify that the kind of
>>> +     each is a C interoperable type.  */
>>> +  do
>>> +    {
>>> +      /* BIND(C) derived types can't have derived types in them unless
>>> +     they're c_ptr or c_funptr. J3/04-007, Section 15.2.3, C1502.  */
>>> +      if (curr_comp->ts.type == BT_DERIVED
>>> +      && curr_comp->ts.derived->ts.is_iso_c != 1)
>>> +        {
>>> +          /* This should be allowed; the draft says a derived-type 
>>> can not
     ^^^^^^^
cannot, here and elsewhere.
>>> +             have type parameters if it is has the BIND attribute.  
>>> Type
>>> +             parameters seem to be for making parameterized derived 
>>> types.
>>> +             There's no need to verify the type if it is 
>>> c_ptr/c_funptr. */
>>> +          retval = verify_bind_c_derived_type (curr_comp->ts.derived);
>>
>> This will break for POINTER components, unless I'm mistaken.
>> type t
>>  type (t), pointer :: next
>> end type t
>> -> infinite recursion
>> I also believe this will break for ALLOCATABLE array components -- 
>> they are not C interoperable, but I don't see it checked here.
> 
> i think i've fixed the infinite recursion case.  what case are you 
> referring to for ALLOCATABLE components?

I don't think the original code would catch something like
TYPE, bind(c) :: t
   integer :: i
end type t
type, bind(c):: t2
   type(t), allocatable :: c(:)
end type t2

My other suggestion should be able to take care of that (with typos 
fixed, sorry, I'm recovering from a disease, which apparently affected 
my cognitive abilities :-/):
>> Hm, reading further I realize that you have the appropriate checks, 
>> just not in a place where they're performed for derived type 
>> components: these two should be moved to the beginning of the loop.
Cheers,
- Tobi