From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22340 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2014 17:36:15 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 22307 invoked by uid 48); 2 Dec 2014 17:36:12 -0000 From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/64138] gfortran interface issue Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 17:36:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.3 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING 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: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64138 --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > That's the conclusion that I'm leaning towards. Reading > section 16 of the standard always makes my head hurt, so > I'm being caution while looking for some subtle point > that I may have missed. And the threads I have pointed to are also convoluted. Now I find quite clear that using the same names for the dummy arguments in c_sub_cr and c_sub_rc does not permit to distinguish between c_sub_cr(num=x,z1=a) and c_sub_rc(num=x,z1=a), while using different names does.