[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31298

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING

--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
Should not this PR be closed as FIXED (no activity for the past five years)?

[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31298

Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |NEW

--- Comment #17 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #16)
> Should not this PR be closed as FIXED (no activity for the past five years)?

Of course not. It's still not implemented. By that argument, we could also
close bugs about UTIO or submodules as FIXED because they haven't be
implemented either.

[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|burnus at gcc dot gnu dot   |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |org                         |dot org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31298

[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-14 16:45 -------
Shouldn't have a target milestone (no regression and not fixed)


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.3.0                       |---


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31298

[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-15 15:21 -------
Check that the renamed imported operator is not imported again, see PR 33541.

If I recall correctly, this part is missing for the patch in PR 33541


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31298

[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-26 18:43 -------
REMAINING:  operator(generic opterator) => operator(user operator)
e.g.  operator(+) => operator(.myplus.)
For obvious reasons the reversed is not allowed (MR&C claims that also the
former is invalid, but I think they err.)

Starting point could be the attachment #13369 and something enhancement of the
previous patch.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31298

[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-26 18:37 -------
Subject: Bug 31298

Author: burnus
Date: Sun Aug 26 18:37:23 2007
New Revision: 127812

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=127812
Log:
2007-08-26  Tobias Burnus  <burnus@net-b.de>

        PR fortran/31298
        * module.c (mio_symbol_ref,mio_interface_rest):  Return pointer_info.
        (load_operator_interfaces): Support multible loading of an operator.

2007-08-26  Tobias Burnus  <burnus@net-b.de>

        PR fortran/31298
        * gfortran.dg/use_10.f90: New.


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/use_10.f90
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/module.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31298

[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[patchapp at dberlin dot org]

------- Comment #11 from patchapp at dberlin dot org  2007-08-17 15:10 -------
Subject: Bug number PR31298

A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01081.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31298

[Bug fortran/31298] F2003: use mod, operator(+) => operator(.userOp.) not supported

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-08-17 08:14 -------
Rejecting "operator(.procedure.)" has been fixed by PR33072.
Accepting multiple renames/imports of an operator ("operator(.op.),
operator(.myop.)=>operator(.op.)") is fixed by the submitted patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01081.html

Remains to be done:
Supporting "operator(+)=>operator(.myPlusOp.)", which can be based on the
attachment 13369 and the submitted patch.


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|wrong-code                  |rejects-valid
            Summary|Uninitialized variable in   |F2003: use mod, operator(+)
                   |f951 (in read_module) /     |=> operator(.userOp.) not
                   |renaming operator in USE    |supported
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.3.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31298