[Bug fortran/47136] [OOP] possible name resolution problems between MODULE and INTERFACE?

2011-01-02 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136

--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 13:25:37 UTC ---
Here is a variant which gives the same error message:

MODULE a
  TYPE, ABSTRACT :: t
  CONTAINS
PROCEDURE, NOPASS :: pp = s
  END TYPE
CONTAINS
  SUBROUTINE s()
  END SUBROUTINE
END MODULE

MODULE s
  USE a
END MODULE

[Bug fortran/47136] [OOP] possible name resolution problems between MODULE and INTERFACE?

2011-01-02 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136

--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 13:33:50 UTC ---
Some related non-OOP examples:


module a
contains
  subroutine s()
  end subroutine
end module

module s
  use a
contains
  subroutine sub()
call s
  end subroutine
end 


gives:

call s
  1
Error: Name 's' at (1) is an ambiguous reference to 's' from current program
unit


Example #2:


module a
contains
  subroutine s()
  end subroutine
end module

module m
  use a
contains
  subroutine s()
  end subroutine
end 


gives:

  subroutine s()
  1
test.f90:8.7:

  use a
   2
Error: Procedure 's' at (1) is already defined at (2)


Are these examples actually valid or invalid? Can someone give the relevant
quotes from the standard?

[Bug fortran/47136] [OOP] possible name resolution problems between MODULE and INTERFACE?

2011-01-02 Thread dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136

--- Comment #4 from Daniel Franke dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 
13:47:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
 Some related non-OOP examples:
[...]
 Are these examples actually valid or invalid? Can someone give the relevant
 quotes from the standard?

Lahey's online source checker rejects both examples with similar messages. It
doesn't know OOP to test, but one could think that my initial example is
invalid after all?!

[Bug fortran/47136] [OOP] possible name resolution problems between MODULE and INTERFACE?

2011-01-02 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136

--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 14:46:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
 (In reply to comment #3)
  Some related non-OOP examples:
 [...]
  Are these examples actually valid or invalid? Can someone give the relevant
  quotes from the standard?
 
 Lahey's online source checker rejects both examples with similar messages.

So do openf95 and pathf95.


 It
 doesn't know OOP to test, but one could think that my initial example is
 invalid after all?!

I agree that it may be invalid, but one should check the exact wording in the
standard.

[Bug fortran/47136] [OOP] possible name resolution problems between MODULE and INTERFACE?

2011-01-02 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136

--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 15:19:10 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
  It
  doesn't know OOP to test, but one could think that my initial example is
  invalid after all?!
 
 I agree that it may be invalid, but one should check the exact wording in the
 standard.

Yes, after a look in the standard I would say that is invalid according to F08,
chapter 16.3.1, sentence #2:

Within its scope, a local identifier of an entity of class (1) or class (4)
shall not be the same as a global identifier used in that scope unless [...]

Class (1) contains all sorts of named variables and procedures, including
abstract interfaces. The exceptions which I elided in the above statement do
not apply. The only question is whether a module counts as used in it's own
scope, which I would answer with yes.

Therefore I think already the following reduction of comment #0 is invalid:

MODULE a
  ABSTRACT INTERFACE
SUBROUTINE s()
END SUBROUTINE
  END INTERFACE
END MODULE

MODULE s
  USE a
END MODULE

Within the scope of module a everything is fine, since the module s is not
used. Within the scope of module s, however, the subroutine s is a local
identifier (by means of use association) and conflicts with the global
identifier of module s itself. Right?

[Bug fortran/47136] [OOP] possible name resolution problems between MODULE and INTERFACE?

2011-01-02 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136

janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords|rejects-valid   |accepts-invalid

--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-02 15:21:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
 Within the scope of module a everything is fine, since the module s is not
 used. Within the scope of module s, however, the subroutine s is a local
 identifier (by means of use association) and conflicts with the global
 identifier of module s itself. Right?

By this reasoning the PR is actually of the type accepts-invalid and not
rejects-valid.

[Bug fortran/47136] [OOP] possible name resolution problems between MODULE and INTERFACE?

2011-01-01 Thread janus at gcc dot gnu.org 
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47136

janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||rejects-valid
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2011.01.01 10:57:51
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-01 10:57:51 UTC ---
Confirmed. This may be related to PR42769 (see comment #24/25). Possibly due to
module loading.