------- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-01 12:28 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> But that's not the problem:
> type t
> procedure(p1_type), nopass, pointer :: p1 => NULL()
> procedure(p2_type), nopass, pointer :: p2 => NULL()
That's not valid either as you have not defined "p1_type" - replacing it by
INTEGER should work, though. -- Well, it actually does not as specification
expressions need to be PURE.
* * *
Daniel, Janus: What do you think about the following incomplete patch? It needs
some extra handling as, e.g., the PURE check fails for the procedure pointer
(it works for the type-bound procedure) and maybe one should insert an assert
that it is really a function and not a subroutine and things like that, but
otherwise it seems to work.
Test case:
!----------------------------
module m
implicit none
type t
procedure(p1_type), nopass, pointer :: p1 => NULL()
contains
procedure, nopass :: tbp => p1_type
end type t
contains
subroutine proc (t1, t2)
type(t), intent(in) :: t1, t2
integer, dimension(t1%p1(), t2%tbp()) :: table
end subroutine proc
pure function p1_type()
integer :: p1_type
p1_type = 42
end function p1_type
end module m
!----------------------------
Index: expr.c
===================================================================
--- expr.c (revision 157899)
+++ expr.c (working copy)
@@ -3559,6 +3559,8 @@ gfc_traverse_expr (gfc_expr *expr, gfc_s
switch (expr->expr_type)
{
+ case EXPR_PPC:
+ case EXPR_COMPCALL:
case EXPR_FUNCTION:
for (args = expr->value.function.actual; args; args = args->next)
{
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |domob at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC build triplet|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |
GCC host triplet|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |
GCC target triplet|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu |
Last reconfirmed|2010-03-30 17:58:35 |2010-04-01 12:28:49
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43591
