--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-11-06 17:26 ---
> I had come to the same conclusion overnight - it is odd that procedures are
> not
> distinguished from non-procedures but there we are
there is nothing odd about that
PROGRAM TEST
INTEGER I
CALL F(I)
END PROGRAM
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-06 08:08 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
I had come to the same conclusion overnight - it is odd that procedures are not
distinguished from non-procedures but there we are; that's what the standard
does not say.
Well done, Tobias.
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-05 21:41 ---
Close as INVALID as Mike Metcalf and Steve Lionel agree with my analysis. Nice
that gfortran gets it right :-)
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-05 17:43 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> With the Lahey free conformance checker, the example below gives:
> 2278-W: "SOURCE.F90", line 3: Specific procedures (one) and (two) do not
> ensure that generic reference (foo) is unambi
--- Comment #2 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-05 11:05 ---
Thanks for putting this together. I had seen the discussion but have not had
time to gather together a story, as you have done.
With the Lahey free conformance checker, the example below gives:
Compiling program uni
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-05 09:19 ---
Created an attachment (id=14486)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14486&action=view)
Original example from comp.lang.fortran
Original example. Accepted by ifort (!), openf95, sunf95 and g95; reject
