http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50659
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
Summary|[4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] |[4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression]
|[F03] ICE on invalid with |[F03] ICE with PROCEDURE
|procedure interface |statement
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-10-08 10:49:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> I'm still not completely sure if the test case is valid or not. I could not
> find anything in the standard which forbids it, so I'm assuming it is valid
> for
> now.
For what it's worth, the test case in comment #2 is accepted by g95, PGI and
PathScale.
It is rejected by ifort with:
error #8169: The specified interface is not declared. [PROC]
procedure(Proc) :: Proc_Get
------------^
To my understanding, this is a bug in ifort. However, ifort does accept the
following variant (which also ICEs with gfortran):
module m
integer :: arrSize
end module
module m2
contains
function Proc (arg)
use m
double precision, dimension(arrSize) :: proc
double precision :: arg
end function
end
program p
use m2
implicit none
procedure(Proc) :: Proc_Get
end
In summary, this test case is accepted by ifort, g95, PGI and PathScale, which
I think is strong empirical evidence that it is valid (though it's not a proof,
of course). I don't have access to any other compiler which supports PROCEDURE
statements.
Unless anyone can show me a restriction in the standard which makes it illegal,
I'll continue to assume that this is an ICE-on-valid bug (which makes it even
more severe).
