https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109684
--- Comment #17 from Tomáš Trnka <trnka at scm dot com> ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #10)
> 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?
On our codebase, this patch behaves just like the patch in comment #5, in that
it also triggers the issue described in comment #7 (assert in a warning about
non-recursive procedures getting called recursively).
Does either of you have any idea as to what that issue could be about? Or is
isolating a testcase our only hope?
