[Bug fortran/41023] Inconsistent error locations for wrong interfaces with overloaded operators

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023

--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
> Has this patch ever been applied and/or reg-tested?

After a quick look to the sources, the answer is no.

[Bug fortran/41023] Inconsistent error locations for wrong interfaces with overloaded operators

[juergen.reuter at desy dot de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023

--- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter  ---
Has this patch ever been applied and/or reg-tested?

[Bug fortran/41023] Inconsistent error locations for wrong interfaces with overloaded operators

[pault at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023

Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2011.03.13 15:24:42
 CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas pault at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-13 15:24:42 
UTC ---
This can be confirmed

Paul

[Bug fortran/41023] Inconsistent error locations for wrong interfaces with overloaded operators

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-20 14:21 ---
Created an attachment (id=20444)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20444action=view)
patch

This produces :

pr41023.f90:9.21:

MODULE PROCEDURE myplus
 1
Error: Operator interface at (1) has the wrong number of arguments


and :

pr41023_bis.f90:9.21:

MODULE PROCEDURE myplus
 1
Error: Intrinsic operator interface at (1) must be a FUNCTION


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023

[Bug fortran/41023] Inconsistent error locations for wrong interfaces with overloaded operators

[mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-04-19 17:58 ---
Probably changed in pr40823.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023

[Bug fortran/41023] Inconsistent error locations for wrong interfaces with overloaded operators

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2010-04-18 15:37 ---
Confirmed. Note that between 4.4 and 4.5 the error from the second test of
comment #0 has changed from:

MODULE PROCEDURE myplus
   1
Error: Intrinsic operator interface at (1) must be a FUNCTION

to

  SUBROUTINE myplus (a, b)
   1
Error: Intrinsic operator interface at (1) must be a FUNCTION

So the errors for the two tests are now consistent. However I am not sure of
where is the best location for them (probably in both places).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023

[Bug fortran/41023] Inconsistent error locations for wrong interfaces with overloaded operators

[domob at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from domob at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-10 11:18 ---
The same holds for type-bound operators, see for instance
gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_2.f03 for the current
inconsistent locations.

But as the checking code is mainly shared, a fix will probably do both in one. 
I think though that this should be verified (e.g. by adapting the mentioned
test-case to the new error locations which will be necessary anyways).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023

[Bug fortran/41023] Inconsistent error locations for wrong interfaces with overloaded operators

[dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr]

--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr  2009-08-10 20:54 ---
I think the ifort messages are more helpful:

[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% ifc pr41023.f90
pr41023.f90(14): error #6711: The number of function arguments is inconsistent
with the intrinsic use of the OPERATOR.   [MYPLUS]
  INTEGER FUNCTION myplus (a, b, c)
---^
compilation aborted for pr41023.f90 (code 1)

[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% ifc pr41023_1.f90
pr41023_1.f90(14): error #6708: A specific procedure must be a function for a
defined OPERATOR.   [MYPLUS]
  SUBROUTINE myplus (a, b)
-^
compilation aborted for pr41023_1.f90 (code 1)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41023