------- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-15 20:04 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> I just asked Bill Long of Cray (who heads the subgroup that covers this) to
> try it on Cray's compiler - it ICE'd with a message that clearly showed that
> it didn't expect to be handed an OPTIONAL, VALUE argument (without flagging it
> as a not-legal construct, though).
What will happen now? Will anyone send an interpretation request, which will
bring it up on the table again?
> > (While we are at it: Please make sure that OPTION + VALUE + BIND(C) will
> > not beallowed in the upcoming interoperability TR
>
> You bet. There was a heated discussion on this yesterday, which didn't result
> in any progress. Bill will send out an e-mail with the issues.
Thanks - as the TR has not been published yet, it should be easier to fix that
the standard.
I intent to submit the following patch:
--- symbol.c (revision 132332)
+++ symbol.c (working copy)
@@ -535,2 +535,14 @@ check_conflict (symbol_attribute *attr,
+ if (attr->value && attr->optional)
+ {
+ if (name == NULL)
+ gfc_error ("GNU Fortran does not support dummy argument at %L with "
+ "both VALUE and OPTIONAL attribute", where);
+ else
+ gfc_error ("GNU Fortran does not support dummy argument '%s' at %L "
+ "with both VALUE and OPTIONAL attribute", name, where);
+
+ return FAILURE;
+ }
+
conf (protected, intrinsic)
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|WONTFIX |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35203
