https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948
--- Comment #16 from kargls at comcast dot net --- On 5/1/25 11:55, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > 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. > When it passes regtesting, feel free to commit. This seems to be a case of "two heads are better than one". I overlooked issues with subroutines while you missed the issue with function-name.
