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 E1B0A3858D39; Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:56:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E1B0A3858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681325790;
	bh=Y2ZJghsNBnQeffd+ePRcZRIJshrb9VgJGp+JWVjoQUM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=U9gDg9TnOKbNcMl7MleLduFiYaXkivFSBuftSPlY4NWolfPW7BkEcrKQZPkqsJdZs
	 Y7ZvymxgjR9x1alpo9oDB+bICOxrlL8yAbI2sJT9PpaMyCWC5I7kJY824mwLFy8mgq
	 4Jhb98vc86THWUM+nBtKgfZNSQNg0PsUPvaLrkGI=
From: "anlauf 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: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:56:30 +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: anlauf 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-RRDaOiR0wD@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 #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #13)
> > This PR may be a duplicate of others that describe gfortran's confusion
> > when using (intrinsic) modules along a module chain like here.
>=20
> There are 50 bugs with "module" in the description, i should go through t=
hem
> to see if there are similar cases. Or do you by chance remember a specific
> one in that area?

IIRC the bug could to be connected to the "USE" of intrinsic modules,
e.g. pr66973.

There should be another one where intrinsic modules and BLOCK are used,
but I have to look for it.=