public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/33945] PROCEDURE in module somtimes wrongly rejected
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 07:40:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071102074010.11573.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-33945-13404@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-02 07:40 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> The statement:
>    procedure x 
> is an F2003 feature allowing the word 'module' preceding as optional.

Note: MODULE PROCEDURE and PROCEDURE mean different things.

"MODULE PROCEDURE" can only be a procedure which is a procedure from that
module. "PROCEDURE" can be any procedure whose interface is explicitly known:
Module procedures, use-associated procedures, external procedures (via
INTERFACE or PROCEDURE(...) statement).

> If I use 'module procedure x' the test case compiles OK for me.

I think this implies another bug as I believe there is not any module procedure
in that module. Using "MODULE PROCEDURE" other compilers give also an error:

NAG f95:
Error: af.f90, line 11: Undefined module procedure X

g95:
Error: EXTERNAL-PROC procedure 'x' at (1) is already a MODULE-PROC procedure

> I think I may have fixed this with my pr33162 patch.  I seem to remember 
> bumping into this 'Duplicate PROCEDURE attribute specified' error somewhere 
> along the way.

I will try your pr33162 patch. (Might take a while since I have at the moment
only a lousy internet connection.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33945


  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-11-02  7:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-10-29 20:00 [Bug fortran/33945] New: " burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-02  6:35 ` [Bug fortran/33945] " jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-02  7:40 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2007-11-02 13:29 ` jvdelisle at verizon dot net
2007-11-02 15:31 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-08 15:29 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-08 15:39 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-11-10  3:55 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2007-11-10 17:26 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2007-11-20  5:05 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20071102074010.11573.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).