http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55895
Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed| |2013-01-07
CC| |burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-07
13:51:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Should gfortran complain with the following code
I think it okay:
procedure ::foo => afoo, bfoo
is equivalent to:
procedure :: foo => afoo
procedure :: bfoo => bfoo
>From Fortran 2008:
R448 type-bound-procedure-stmt
is PROCEDURE [ [ , binding-attr -list ] :: ] type-bound-proc-decl-list
R449 type-bound-proc-decl is binding-name [ => procedure-name ]
C464 (R448) If => procedure-name appears in a type-bound-proc-decl, the
double-colon separator shall appear.
If neither => procedure-name nor interface-name appears in a
type-bound-proc-decl, it is as though => procedure-name had appeared with a
procedure name the same as the binding name.
Note: Fortran 2003 didn't allow a list, i.e. with -std=f2003 it is correctly
rejected.
Fortran 2003:
R451 specific-binding
is PROCEDURE [ (interface-name) ] [ [ , binding-attr -list ] :: ]
binding-name [ => procedure-name ]
