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
next prev 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: linkBe 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).