------- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-05 07:45 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> FX,
> > When the len in "call sub(len)" is resolved, it is never given its correct
> > return type, which leads to the ICE. I still don't understand why the
> > implicit
> > none is doing this on us... Paul, any idea?
> >
> ..bother, yes I was onto this.... a while back. I will consult my notes and
> come back to you. I got severely stuck for some reason that I do not recall.
> Paul
I am glad to see that you are pursuing that one. I nearly bust my head on it
my notes indicate that I had a fix that broke everything else; no details, so
not much help I'm afraid. I think that you had better take it that I got
nowhere!
The bug that involves INDEX (PR???) is clearer. The mechanism, in
trans-decl(gfc_get_extern_function_decl), for handling intrinsics simply does
not allow that number of arguments. I tried to extend it by looking at
isym->resolve.f1 and f2. It seemed to work but I did not have time to work on
it.
I saw the correspondence on comp.lang.fortran about this. I note that INDEX is
explicitly allowable as an actual argument. That said, there is no mention in
13.13 of the optional argument BACK. Is that intentional, do you think?
Since you are actively working on this, I have reassigned it to you. I hope
that's OK?
Best regards
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
AssignedTo|pault at gcc dot gnu dot org|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27900
