[J3] finalization and submodule

[Steven G. Kargl]

All,

I have a question about finalization and submodules that is
sparked by https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97122
The code in question is

   MODULE m
     IMPLICIT NONE
     INTERFACE
       MODULE SUBROUTINE other
         IMPLICIT NONE
       END SUBROUTINE other
     END INTERFACE
   END MODULE m
   
   SUBMODULE (m) s
     IMPLICIT NONE
     TYPE :: t
       CONTAINS
         FINAL :: p
     END TYPE t
     CONTAINS
       SUBROUTINE p(arg)
         TYPE(t), INTENT(INOUT) :: arg
       END SUBROUTINE p
     
       MODULE SUBROUTINE other
       END SUBROUTINE other
   END SUBMODULE s

According to the bug report, gfortran and nagfor reject the code
with an error message of the form

   "Error: pr97122.f90, line 14: Type T has final subroutines
    but is not defined in the specification part of a module"

Intel's ifort compiles the code.

Using 22-077r1 (22 Apr 22), I can find

   C791  (R753) A final-subroutine-name shall be the name of a module
      procedure with exactly one dummy argument.  That argument shall be
      nonoptional and shall be a noncoarray, nonpointer, nonallocatable,
      nonpolymorphic variable of the derived type being defined.  All
      length type parameters of the dummy argument shall be assumed.
      The dummy argument shall not have the INTENT (OUT) or VALUE
      attribute.

   3.112.4
   module procedure
   procedure defined by a module subprogram, or ...

   3.143.3
   module subprogram
   subprogram that is contained in a module or submodule but is not
   an internal subprogram


   14.2.3 Submodules
   ...
   3 A submodule may provide implementations for separate module procedures
     (15.6.2.5), each of which is declared (15.4.3.2) within that submodule
     or one of its ancestors, and declarations and definitions of other
    entities that are accessible by host association in its descendants.

AFAIC, 'subroutine p(arg)' meets at the requirement for finalization.
I admit that I may have missed something in chasing 'module procedure'
through 22-007r1.

So, the question are
 'Are gfortran and nagfor correct in rejecting the code?'
 'Does have Intel's ifort have bug?'
 'Does the Fortran standard need be refined to explicitly
  state that derived type with a final statement can only
  appear in the specification part of a module?'

-- 
Steve
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3950 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20230504/00e71814/attachment.bin>