http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40453
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Enhanced argument checking: |[F95] Enhanced (recursive)
| |argument checking
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-10-06 14:39:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I think some other checks should still be added, e.g.
>
> a) PUREness check (see example below); passing/assigning
> a pure to a non-pure dummy/proc-pointer is OK; doing vice versa
> is not.
>
> [...]
>
> b) Similarly for ELEMENTAL. For proc-pointer assignments, use the
> first example with PURE changed to ELEMENTAL. That non-intrinsic
> elementals are not allowed as actual argument, is already checked
> for (cf. C1228). Except of the remark in parentheses I could not
> find in F2003/F2008 anything which prohibits ELEMENTAL for the
> dummy argument; however, the parentheses is normative. Maybe one
> should re-check the standard before adding an error check (see
> example below).
Both checks for PURE and ELEMENTAL have been implemented in r179080 for
PR41733.
> c) One needs to go recursively over the arguments as the second
> example below shows.
>
> [...]
>
> program RecursiveInterface
> interface
> subroutine a(x)
> real :: x
> end subroutine a
> subroutine b(a)
> integer :: a
> end subroutine b
> subroutine c(f)
> procedure(a) :: f
> end subroutine c
> subroutine d(f)
> procedure(b) :: f
> end subroutine d
> subroutine e(f)
> procedure(c) :: f
> end subroutine e
> end interface
> call e(d) ! Argument (dummy subroutine) d has an integer argument
> ! but e's f expects a real argument
> end program RecursiveInterface
In fact this is still accepted without error.
