Hi Paul,
> It is something of an exaggeration to say that this PR is a regession,
> although it is true that gcc-4.7 gives error messages for the testcase
> in the correct places. In fact, these messages disappear if IMPLICIT
> INTEGER (a) at the start of the testcase.
>
> The fix ensures that the interfaces are selected and checked
> symmetrically in gfc_compare_interfaces.
>
> The submitted testcase only checks the errors. The other tests in the
> testsuite adequately check the functionality of procedure pointer
> assignments.
>
> Bootstrapped and regtested on FC17/i86_64 - OK for trunk
thanks for the patch. It looks mostly good to me.
Just one question: Why is the symmetrization actually needed? I.e. in
what respect is 'gfc_compare_interfaces' asymmetric? I don't directly
see that. To the contrary, it seems to me that gfc_compare_interfaces
is (at least in parts) already symmetrized internally, as e.g. in:
if (count_types_test (f1, f2, p1, p2)
|| count_types_test (f2, f1, p2, p1))
return 0;
if (generic_correspondence (f1, f2, p1, p2)
|| generic_correspondence (f2, f1, p2, p1))
return 0;
Also, note that gfc_compare_interfaces is never really called in a
symmetrized fashion elsewhere. Would we need this symmetrization in
other places too?
Cheers,
Janus
> 2013-01-12 Paul Thomas <[email protected]>
>
> PR fortran/54286
> * expr.c (gfc_check_pointer_assign): Ensure that both lvalue
> and rvalue interfaces are presented to gfc_compare_interfaces.
> Simplify references to interface names by using the symbols
> themselves. Call gfc_compare_interfaces with s1 and s2 inter-
> changed to overcome the asymmetry of this function. Do not
> repeat the check for the presence of s1 and s2.
>
> 2013-01-12 Paul Thomas <[email protected]>
>
> PR fortran/54286
> * gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_result_8.f90 : New test.
