From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 432093858D32; Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:17:40 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 432093858D32 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1682353060; bh=K5RZRN2LUJsaOmMtQCNGr2Fv56uOPBDpCidWdZWpIjo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=egvh33jJidHo3lQ38FFGvAiO/3wFEsrQ5rQnpZ5LrwgiaHc+2zT2L+AVAes589FU8 GtkYkHktQ+0kU8e2Ho1ro10pgGgcwo+OjfFwXgXsLqiR7CPJdkd57769Nkmdwbg1P0 WA7MqtzeSCj19EOGJGt4ina3LLjqeqyDggTRhttQ= From: "aldot at gcc dot 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: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 16:17:38 +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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103931 --- Comment #17 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer --- (In reply to Bernhard Reutner-Fischer from comment #16) > I'm testing a more elaborate test which keeps check_for_ambiguous in the > same spot as before, but in that check, looks if the symtree (C_ptr in th= is > case, number 3) is listed in the generic interfaces after the existing ch= eck > that looks if the symbol itself is GENERIC. This highlights cases like in use_24.f90 and use_27.f90 and requires follow= -up changes that i'm not entirely comfortable with. >=20 > I did not really look at the standard, so i wonder if that makes sense to > somebody more familiar with that area?=