We’re still a bit confused about the complaint and what actions you would like us to take. We read your initial post as a complaint about the compiler issuing a warning but upon your clarification post you seem to be more at issue with the text of the warning rather than the warning itself?
Keep in mind that warning and error messages must be short and concise as well as convey the to the user a basic understanding of the issue. They are not meant to give a full explanation of a problem. Common terms and edits for brevity may be used.
Hence, a more technically correct message such as:
PGF90-W-0468-Argument to the transformational function C_LOC in the ISO_C_BINDING intrinsic module must have a TARGET or POINTER attribute set
Would be way too long for a warning message, so was condensed. The omission of “POINTER” was most likely done was since adding “TARGET” is the simplest change to the code to avoid this issue. Using “POINTER” will change the properties of the variable such as how it’s passed as an argument.
For fuller explanations, we do document some of the error and warning messages in our Reference Manual (https://www.pgroup.com/resources/docs/18.10/x86/pgi-ref-guide/index.htm#messages). This particular warning is listed but does not contain a detailed l explanation.
Would adding a detailed explanation here be an acceptable resolution to your complaint? Or do you have suggested text for this warning message that would better convey the issue?
As for the question of whether C_LOC is an intrinsic or not. Intrinsic here is meant more as being provided by the compiler implementation. As you point out that this does not match the exact phrasing as listed in the Fortran 2018 standard’s definition for “intrinsic”. Although not technically correct, since C_LOC is part of the ISO_C_BINDING intrinsic module and provided by the compiler implementation, it is often thought of and commonly referred to as an intrinsic.
Of course, we are open to suggestions. Would you prefer the error message called c_loc a “tranformational function” instead? Though, I’ve also seen it refereed to as an “inquiry function” as well.