[Patch, Fortran] RFC: PR fortran/37779, diagnose "missing" recursive

[Daniel Kraft]

Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Daniel Kraft wrote:
>> once again a slightly revised version; I converted the warnings back
>> to errors as suggested by Paul and Tobias.  The second change is that
>> I converted the calls inside resolve_actual_arglist from
>> resolve_procedure_expression to the general gfc_resolve_expr, so as to
>> "fix the problem" that this was never called for procedure actual
>> argument expressions.  I believe this is the cleaner solution, but I'm
>> also fine with using the old version of the patch instead.
>>
>> No regressions on GNU/Linux-x86-32 for this one, either.
> OK. Maybe it is better to change the gfc_error back to a warning as one
> can indeed produce valid programs (which do some thing) using procedure
> pointers.

Committed as rev 142158 with the errors converted back to warnings.  I 
will keep the PR open and work now on the contained procedure part.

Thanks for the discussion and comments and review!

Daniel

> At least for proc pointer that would be in line with Dominique's and
> Jerry's preference, with James' program (see c.l.f), and I also don't
> feel well rejecting valid programs. One could do it context dependent,
> i.e. only reject actual arguments and warn for the rest, but that seems
> to be more work, which could be deferred to a later patch (if needed).
> 
> (I checked with a couple of compilers, for actual arguments ifort and
> NAG f95 give an error; for proc pointers: ifort does not support
> "procptr => self" at all and NAG does not support proc pointers.  g95
> (incl. proc pointer), sunf95, openf95, pgf95 and pathf95 print no
> diagnostics.)
> 
> Tobias
> 


-- 
Done:  Arc-Bar-Cav-Rog-Sam-Val-Wiz
To go: Hea-Kni-Mon-Pri-Ran-Tou