https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105012
--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #21)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #18)
> > Tentative patch, regtests cleanly but otherwise untested:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
> > index 850007fd2e1..0a1520e95ba 100644
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.cc
> > @@ -6503,8 +6503,19 @@ gfc_conv_procedure_call (gfc_se * se, gfc_symbol *
> > sym,
> > else
> > {
> > bool add_clobber;
> > - add_clobber = fsym && fsym->attr.intent == INTENT_OUT
> > - && !fsym->attr.allocatable && !fsym->attr.pointer
> > + gfc_symbol *dsym = fsym;
> > + gfc_dummy_arg *dummy;
> > +
> > + /* Use associated dummy as fallback for formal
> > + argument if there is no explicit interface. */
> > (...)
>
> Note that if there is no explicit interface, I expect associated_dummy to be
> NULL, and as a result dsym and fsym to always actually be the same thing.
No, they're not, when the procedures are in the same file.
At least that's what gdb tells me...
