All builds, tests, and looks good.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

I changed this update to just add some tests and a new error message.

This is an odd quirk of the language.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

In D94505#2493131, @klausler wrote:

If a dummy procedure has an explicit interface, the actual procedure must conform to it (15.5.2.9 paragraph 1). Do your changes allow a actual procedure with an implicit interface to be associated with a dummy procedure with an explicit interface?

Responding to Jean's comments.

With Peter's guidance, I changed the definition of actual arguments to allow
for the value of a statement label and changed the code that processes actual
arguments to put the value of the label into the actual argument.

But how can it be okay for the actual argument to be missing when the corresponding dummy argument is an alternate return?

In D94017#2477542, @klausler wrote:

I'm confused by this change. The call checking code that's been modified pertains to absent actual arguments; but alternate returns can't be optional and must have corresponding positional actual arguments.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

All looks good. I tested the resulting compiler on both in-tree and out-of-tree builds and as able to run "runtest" for all configurations without a problem.

I was able to invoke the "runtest" on both in-tree and out-of-tree builds. What command were you using to invoke "runtest" that caused the problem?

Responses to review comments. I moved the state variable indicating if we're
resolving names in an EQUIVALENCE statement to the class ScopeHandler and used
the existing FindInScope() function to limit name loopups to the current scope
rather than inventing a new interface.

I'm not sure how to layer one patch on top of another. I tried doing an "arc patch D93343" followed by "arc patch D93344". The second command said that it successfully committed the patch, but then it said "Cherry Pick Failed!" How do I combine both patches?

All builds, tests, and looks good.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

@clementval , never mind. I had a setup error mixing up the "master" and "main" branches.

@clementval , when I build and test an in-tree build, everything works fine. But when I build out-of-tree, the error message associated with line 165 does not appear. Do you know why?

I changed my implementation to just not do semantic checking for EQUIVALENCE
statements when in an interface block.

In D92501#2429227, @klausler wrote:

I don't think that moving a temporary data structure from declaration processing into a more permanent object like Scope to accomplish scoping is the right way to fix this problem, unfortunately.

The specification-part of an interface block exists only to define the dummy arguments and (if there is one) the function result, so declarations of other local variables are moot in an interface outside of specification inquiries like SIZE(). Since local variables are the only objects that could meaningfully appear in an EQUIVALENCE statement in the specification part of an interface -- dummies can't be EQUIVALENCEd and there's nothing to be learned from an EQUIVALENCE of a function result -- there's no good reason to check such EQUIVALENCE statements for anything. I think that we should warn about their uselessness and otherwise ignore them.

It would be good to also fix the lint changes that were automatically suggested.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

Aside from the noted items, all builds, tests, and looks good.

I fixed some spelling errors and added a test to verify that the duplicate
ac-implied-do variable names get evaluated correctly in the presence of
constant folding.

Reworked the code to check array shape conformance as suggested by Peter.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

All of the flang front end builds without warnings, and everything tests cleanly.

I'm having trouble building and running tests, but all of the changes in this update seem to build and test fine.

All builds, tests, and looks good.

All builds, tests, and looks good.