https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #13 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #12)
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:04:54PM +0000, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> > index 3cd470ddcca..b0bb8bc1471 100644
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/resolve.cc
> > @@ -17966,7 +17966,9 @@ resolve_types (gfc_namespace *ns)
> >
> > for (n = ns->contained; n; n = n->sibling)
> > {
> > - if (gfc_pure (ns->proc_name) && !gfc_pure (n->proc_name))
> > + if (gfc_pure (ns->proc_name)
> > + && !gfc_pure (n->proc_name)
> > + && !n->proc_name->attr.artificial)
> > gfc_error ("Contained procedure %qs at %L of a PURE procedure must "
> > "also be PURE", n->proc_name->name,
> > &n->proc_name->declared_at);
> >
> > pault, dos the above look correct?
> >
>
> This patch passes a regression test with no new regressions
> on x86_64-*-*freebsd.
Hi Steve,
That will certainly fix the bug. An alternative crosses my mind, which is to
check the pureness of the final routines as the wrapper is being built and give
the wrapper the pure attribute if they are all pure.
Cheers
Paul
