From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13153 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2011 13:23:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 13144 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2011 13:23:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:23:26 +0000 From: "bardeau at iram dot fr" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/51268] [Regression] A subroutine can not know anymore its own interface Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 14:14:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: bardeau at iram dot fr X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg02406.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51268 --- Comment #6 from Sebastien Bardeau 2011-11-24 13:23:18 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > It should be buried in "16 Scope, association, and definition", but I need some > time to extract it. Ok, so did I. Here is what I can read section 16.2, p.406 (shortened): "Within a scoping unit, identifiers of entities in the following classes: (1) ..., abstract interfaces, generic interfaces, ... are local identifiers in that scoping unit. Within a scoping unit, a local identifier of an entity of class (1) shall not be the same as a global identifier used in that scoping unit." There is no explicit rule regarding the "specific interfaces" which we are interested in since the beginning. Furthermore, section 12.3.2.1, p.260 + corrigendum 5: "A procedure shall not have more than one explicit specific interface in a given scoping unit, except that if the interface is accessed by use association, there may be more than one local name for the procedure". As far as I understand, specific interface names accessed by use-association do not conflict with the procedure name itself. Isn't it a key point in our discussion? > You could also ask at the comp.lang.fortran newsgroup where > (among others) the editor of the Fortran 2003 standard answers such questions. Yes it will be interesting to have their point of view depending on how we finally agree on the standard interpretation. Thanks for your other explanations and examples, I keep them in mind for further discussions, here or on the comp.lang.fortran newsgroup .