From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 050CC3858D20; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:59:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 050CC3858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681415943;
	bh=aJbmHB+eygTc7tU8IuKiRv5Xgi7DLvX1C4UMkCtTb2Y=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ImFxLav2vSgz3zA2KE73m5JTbLcoArpwVzKQh57bpzFSNCJwF2xiJMevvPPcxdJby
	 OmhN/aivtUh1LX4x7n6uLlshpHs/jJJTFxG6aPclby0OzLz06kGbU8zioXAtuOR3NH
	 cqEwWRBqNK4Zf+lmM7wTyRJkhz3Yzl6OmmDHC8d4=
From: "aldot at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/103931] Type name "c_ptr" is ambiguous when
 iso_c_binding is imported both directly and indirectly
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 19:59:02 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aldot at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103931-4-0iXB0HtCFb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103931-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103931-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103931

--- Comment #15 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <aldot at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #13)

> I'm testing a patch.

I have to admit that this is a mess.

It's even more frustrating now as i did some preparatory cleanup for at lea=
st
some of the inconveniences in that area a while ago but never got to apply
these. Anyway.

Not sure if the following would be correct:

Under the assumption that we have a generic "c_ptr" in a module, we know (?)
that "c_ptr" is not ambiguous.

Is that right?

>From what i see from a quick glance, we seem to write more symbols to the
module files than strictly needed, and that does not really help the case.

Short of a broader fix, a quick-hack to avoid the error about ambiguous
intrinsic built-in symbols might be to (*cough*):

--- a/gcc/fortran/module.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/module.cc
@@ -5320,6 +5322,11 @@ check_for_ambiguous (gfc_symtree *st, pointer_info
*info)
        return false;
     }

+  /* A symbol from an intrinsic module is not ambiguous.  */
+  /* This should not be necessary, at least not in this form!  */
+  if (st_sym->from_intmod !=3D INTMOD_NONE)
+    return false;
+
   return true;
 }


This works as expected, fixes this specific PR and tests cleanly.
Should i propose this workaround as a patch or is it a bit too gross?
WDYT?=