--- Comment #17 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-08 06:20 ---
Subject: Bug 37445
Author: pault
Date: Sat Nov 8 06:19:12 2008
New Revision: 141706
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141706
Log:
2008-11-08 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #18 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-08 06:49 ---
Fixed on thrunk and 4.3.
Thanks for the report.
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #16 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-03 06:46 ---
Subject: Bug 37445
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 3 06:44:47 2008
New Revision: 141543
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=141543
Log:
2008-11-03 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #15 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-30 10:29 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Created an attachment (id=16429)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16429action=view) [edit]
Reduced test case which is failing with the patch
OK - I'll get onto it!
--- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-29 10:25 ---
Somehow the patch is not enough to compile program (see tar.gz / attachment
16266):
gfortran -c syskindsM.f90 formatbankM.f90 charutilM.f90 tinyisetM.f90
timestampmodM.f90 errelmntM.f90 errstackM.f90 debugmodM.f90
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-29 21:39 ---
Somehow the patch is not enough to compile program
Actually the situation is worse -- the failure occurs now much earlier:
w/ patch: Failure in errormodM.f90 (43th compiled file)
w/o patch: Failure in
--- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-29 22:06 ---
Created an attachment (id=16429)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16429action=view)
Reduced test case which is failing with the patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37445
--- Comment #11 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-28 20:38 ---
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2008-09/msg00407.html
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-09-10 06:38 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Two or more accessible entities, other than generic interfaces or defined
operators, may have the same identifier only if the identifier is not used to
refer to an entity in the scoping unit.
--- Comment #7 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-09-10 06:48 ---
(In reply to comment #6):
actually, I rather sure that gfortran gets it wrong. This would be a wrong-code
MODULE M1
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S1
write(6,*) M1 OK
CALL ABORT()
END SUBROUTINE
END MODULE
MODULE M2
USE
--- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-10 11:33 ---
actually, I rather sure that gfortran gets it wrong. This would be a
wrong-code
Unless it were accepts-invalid. (Which I don't think, see below.)
Unfortunately, I yesterday somehow completely missed the second
--- Comment #9 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-10 12:26 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
reduced:
MODULE M1
INTERFACE putaline
MODULE PROCEDURE S1,S2
END INTERFACE
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S1(I)
END SUBROUTINE
SUBROUTINE S2(F)
END SUBROUTINE
END MODULE
MODULE M2
--- Comment #10 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-10 12:33 ---
(In reply to comment #3
resolve.c(check_host_association) explicitly excludes checking the symbol for
the procedure if it is use associated. It might just be that the check should
exclude symbols that are both
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 18:44 ---
Paul, sounds like a bug for you.
* * *
The problem is that gfortran calls the use-associated (generic or specific)
procedure instead of the host-associated procedure. (The procedure is
use-associated in the
--- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 19:18 ---
Thinking it over, I think the program is INVALID per
Two or more accessible entities, other than generic interfaces or defined
operators, may have the same identifier only if the identifier is not used to
refer to
15 matches
Mail list logo
