https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85357
--- Comment #5 from c...@mnet-mail.de --- It would be rather surprising if the Fortran standard viewed this as being invalid code (the procedure in question is bound to a dervied type, hence should be overridable). Better to consult the standard to be sure (don't have a copy at hand, unfortunately). On 08/29/2018 09:47 PM, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85357 > > janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |janus at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- > I would argue that the code is actually invalid. A current trunk build shows: > > 23 | use base > | 2 > .... > 34 | subroutine summation(self,i,j) > | 1 > Error: Procedure ‘summation’ at (1) is already defined at (2) > > That's also what I get with all earlier versions I tried, and I think the > error > is correct. > > The only bug I can see is the ICE that occurs with trunk (after the original > error message and a couple of follow-up errors): > > f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault > 0xc5ac8f crash_signal > /home/jweil/github/gcc/trunk/gcc/toplev.c:325 > 0x6a75b4 free_sym_tree > /home/jweil/github/gcc/trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:3892 > 0x6a75bc free_sym_tree > /home/jweil/github/gcc/trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:3892 > 0x6a75bc free_sym_tree > /home/jweil/github/gcc/trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:3892 > 0x6a75bc free_sym_tree > /home/jweil/github/gcc/trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:3892 > 0x6a75bc free_sym_tree > /home/jweil/github/gcc/trunk/gcc/fortran/symbol.c:3892 > > Looks like an infinite recursion in 'free_sym_tree'. >
