https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to kargls from comment #14) > HI Paul, > > The difference in my pr119948_1.f90 and pr119948_2.f90 is > that the former is Damian's testcase with a result-name > while latter does not use result-name so the function-name > is the result variable. Both tests use a 'module procedure' > construct. I did look at your patch (but obviously did not > test it) and thought it would catch the latter. > > Your patch does catch issues with subroutine while my > original patch does not deal with subroutines. Hi Steve, I feel beyond stupid - it's not even a matter of the strength of my glasses :-( I have taken your chunk from primary.cc and rolled the two tests into one. It's regtesting right now. Thanks Paul
