Sorry for taking so long to come back to this (I was traveling all of last week) ...
>> Ok, so: How about the attached patch as a simple & backportable fix for >> the regression? (Ok for trunk/4.8/4.7?) > > I think that part is okay - but as you mentioned TYPE(*) in your last email: > That doesn't work; I think compare_type_rank should be made asymmetrical in > this regard (ditto for "!gcc$ attributes no_arg_check"). Thus, could you fix > that part as well? What do you mean? That "type(t)" arguments should be able to override "type(*)", but not vice versa? I think that would interfere with the current patch, which symmetrizes the call to "compare_type_rank". If one direction gives a negative result, then both cases will be rejected. Anyway, anything in this direction is probably a non-regression and should rather be handled as a follow-up. Is the current patch (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-05/msg00045.html) ok for trunk/4.8/4.7? Cheers, Janus
