Hi Paul,
Am 01.11.23 um 19:02 schrieb Paul Richard Thomas:
The interpretation request came in a long time ago but I only just got
around to implementing it.
The updated text from the standard is in the comment. Now I am writing
this, I think that I should perhaps use switch(op)/case rather than using
if/else if and depending on the order of the gfc_intrinsic_op enum being
maintained. Thoughts?
the logic is likely harder to parse with if/else than with
switch(op)/case. However, I do not think that the order of
the enum will ever be changed, as the module format relies
on that very order.
The testcase runs fine with both mainline and nagfor. I think that
compile-only with counts of star-eq and star_not should suffice.
I found other cases that are rejected even with your patch,
but which are accepted by nagfor. Example:
print *, ('a' == c)
Nagfor prints F at runtime as expected, as it correctly resolves
this to star_eq. Further examples can be easily constructed.
Can you have a look?
Thanks,
Harald
Regtests with no regressions. OK for mainline?
Paul
Fortran: Defined operators with unlimited polymorphic args [PR98498]
2023-11-01 Paul Thomas <pa...@gcc.gnu.org>
gcc/fortran
PR fortran/98498
* interface.cc (upoly_ok): New function.
(gfc_extend_expr): Use new function to ensure that defined
operators using unlimited polymorphic formal arguments do not
override their intrinsic uses.
gcc/testsuite/
PR fortran/98498
* gfortran.dg/interface_50.f90: New test.
