public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics
@ 2008-03-05 17:46 burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-05 22:06 ` [Bug fortran/35476] " pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 more replies)
0 siblings, 8 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-05 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
Found the following on the J3 Fortran list. I think the program below is
invalid for the reasons given by Bill Long, but it has not finally decided yet
(on J3). (The question/program comes from Sun)
Current status:
- openf95 and sunf95 reject it
- ifort, gfortran, NAG f95, and g95 accept it
Bill Long writes that he tested two non-Sun compilers, of which two gave an
error and two did not.
Craig diged up from the standard:
| Use association is defined in section 11.2.1. Host association is
| covered in section 16.4.1.3. The second paragraph starts with this sentence
| [411:9-10]: "If an entity that is accessed by use association has the same
| nongeneric name as a host entity, the host entity is inaccessible by that
| name."
However, as Bill notes:
| I think that issuing the error is valid. Generic interfaces merge
| together their lists of specifics when more than one with the same
| generic name is visible. Whether that visibility comes through host
| association or use association should not matter. Craig's citation from
| f03 explicitly says "nongeneric" intentionally, and does not apply in
| this case.
MODULE M1
INTERFACE SUBR
MODULE PROCEDURE SUBR1
END INTERFACE
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE SUBR1
END SUBROUTINE
END
MODULE M2
INTERFACE SUBR
MODULE PROCEDURE SUBR2
END INTERFACE
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE SUBR2
END SUBROUTINE
END
PROGRAM MAIN
USE M1
CALL S
CONTAINS
SUBROUTINE S
USE M2
CALL SUBR
END SUBROUTINE
END
--
Summary: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with
same specifics
Product: gcc
Version: 4.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: accepts-invalid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics
2008-03-05 17:46 [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-05 22:06 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-06 7:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-05 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-05 22:05 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> Found the following on the J3 Fortran list. I think the program below is
> invalid for the reasons given by Bill Long, but it has not finally decided yet
> (on J3). (The question/program comes from Sun)
This worries me a lot. If you recall, I did a lot of work on this and you
acted as reviewer/collaborator. We concluded that, in general, the precedence
rules should be accomplished without warnings or errors. Several of the
exmaples in the standard guided us in this.
I'll go and look at the correspondence.
Paul who is still struggling and losing the fight with memory leaks in
allocatable components.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics
2008-03-05 17:46 [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-05 22:06 ` [Bug fortran/35476] " pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-06 7:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-07 12:04 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-06 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-06 07:00 -------
Thread starts here: http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2008-March/001103.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics
2008-03-05 17:46 [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-05 22:06 ` [Bug fortran/35476] " pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-06 7:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-07 12:04 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-15 22:41 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-07 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-07 12:03 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> - openf95 and sunf95 reject it
> - ifort, gfortran, NAG f95, and g95 accept it
> Bill Long writes that he tested two non-Sun compilers, of which two gave an
> error and two did not.
For what it's worth, the IBM compiler also accepts it. (Now, which is the
second non-Sun compiler that rejects it?)
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics
2008-03-05 17:46 [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-07 12:04 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-03-15 22:41 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-12 10:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-03-15 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-15 22:40 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > - openf95 and sunf95 reject it
> > - ifort, gfortran, NAG f95, and g95 accept it
> > Bill Long writes that he tested two non-Sun compilers, of which two gave an
> > error and two did not.
>
> For what it's worth, the IBM compiler also accepts it. (Now, which is the
> second non-Sun compiler that rejects it?)
>
Where are we at with the J3 discussion? I rather think that it is a bug....
Paul
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics
2008-03-05 17:46 [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2008-03-15 22:41 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-04-12 10:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-11 15:11 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-12 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-04-12 10:33 -------
> Where are we at with the J3 discussion?
Sun requested a formal interpretation:
http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2008-March/001207.html
Read on there. At some point there will be a formal reply by J3; if textual
changes are needed, it will go through WG5 and ISO.
Snapshot:
- Bob of Sun: Thinks it should be valid according the intent of the standard,
but it is invalid by words of the standard
- Bill of Cray: Thinks it is invalid (and no exception should be added)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics
2008-03-05 17:46 [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2008-04-12 10:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-11 15:11 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-11 15:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-17 22:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: pault at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-11 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics
2008-03-05 17:46 [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-11 15:11 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-02-11 15:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-17 22:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-02-11 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-11 15:36 -------
See: http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/187/09-006A.txt
and there "NUMBER: F03/0116". One now only needs to carefully read the text to
understand the interpretation.
Additionally, it needs to pass some more review (J3 and then WG5). Current
STATUS: J3 consideration in progress
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/35476] Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics
2008-03-05 17:46 [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-02-11 15:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-12-17 22:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-12-17 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-12-17 22:50:41
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35476
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <bug-35476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>]
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-01-28 22:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-03-05 17:46 [Bug fortran/35476] New: Accepts invalid: USE/host association of generics with same specifics burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-05 22:06 ` [Bug fortran/35476] " pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-06 7:01 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-07 12:04 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-03-15 22:41 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-04-12 10:34 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-11 15:11 ` pault at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-02-11 15:36 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-12-17 22:50 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-35476-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2012-01-28 22:33 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2012-01-28 23:09 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
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).