[Bug fortran/90111] New: Placement of Fortran OpenACC 'routine' directive inside 'specification-part'

[tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90111

            Bug ID: 90111
           Summary: Placement of Fortran OpenACC 'routine' directive
                    inside 'specification-part'
           Product: gcc
           Version: 9.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: openacc, rejects-valid
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

OpenACC 2.7 (same in 2.6), in section 2.15.1. "Routine Directive" states that
"In Fortran, the 'routine' directive without a name may appear within the
specification part of a subroutine or function definition, or within an
interface body for a subroutine or function in an interface block, and applies
to the containing subroutine or function. The 'routine' directive with a name
may appear in the specification part of a subroutine, function or module, and
applies to the named subroutine or function".

It therefore seems wrong to me that the following gets rejected:

    subroutine s
      !$acc routine seq
      implicit none
      integer :: i

      i = 0
    end subroutine s

        2 |   !$acc routine seq
          |                   2
        3 |   implicit none
          |               1containi
    Error: IMPLICIT NONE statement at (1) cannot follow !$ACC ROUTINE statement
at (2)

Or am I misunderstanding something about 'implicit-stmt'?  But at least for the
'routine' directive without a name, which always implicitly applies to the
containing subprogram etc., this placement should not matter at all (thus, the
above be valid).

I have not looked for any other such rejects-valid constructs.