------- Comment #6 from 1fhcwee02 at sneakemail dot com 2006-04-13 15:51 ------- I was asked about this yesterday. I see my comments didn't make it here, so I'll try putting them in myself with this new account. (No, I can't monitor bug reports with any regularity; I can't even really keep up with the mailing list.)
This is not a bug. The code is nonstandard and the compiler is acting exactly as specified by the standard. Actualy, even the summary line is wrong, and in a way that illustrates the misunderstanding here. The compiler is not rejecting the call; the error is at the USE statements, before the call even comes into play. See 14.1.2.3 of the f95 standard. That's where the relevant material is. Some cases of disambiguation are tricky and can't be reasoned out without checking the exact words of the standard (just because a human can see how to disambiguate something, that doesn't mean it is standard conforming, so you have to actually check the standard rather than figure out whether you could disambiguate it). But this case is trivial, and the whole point is the misunderstanding illustrated by the summary line. A generic is required to be unambigous under *ALL* possible calls. It isn't even relevant what particular calls are made. An illegal generic is illegal even if it isn't called at all. In particular, a generic is required to be unambiguous under both keyword and positional forms. There is even a tricky condition relating to mixed cases, but this example doesn't get into that. This example is trivially ambiguous in positional form. Again, it doesn't matter that there are no such positional calls; the generic itself is what is illegal - not the calls. For the exact citation, see the word "both" on line 24 of page 277 of f95. I note as an aside that even though the OP noted that the Intel compiler "disagreed" with gfortran, the data he posted does not support that statement. The Intel compiler also caught the problem, the only distinction being that at least one version appears to treat it as a warning instead of a fatal error. IN any case, regardless of what any other compiler might do, the code is nonstandard. I also note that this kind of extension is exceedingly dangerous to count on - more so than many extensions - because it has high odds of having conflicts with future enhaancements to the standard. Generic disambiguation has subtle rules and there are many (sometimes conflicting) proposals to enhance them. I think this bug should be marked as "invalid", but I'll leave that call to others, as you could consider it an enhancement request for an extension. I'd advise against such an extension, but that's not my call. -- 1fhcwee02 at sneakemail dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |1fhcwee02 at sneakemail dot | |com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27112