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 1838E3858C55; Sat,  8 Oct 2022 06:53:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1838E3858C55
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665212003;
	bh=oJ+9xfDwZVN6ldP9LjHAGub+ukbhqscnfJRRDAT5Mt8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=LamEhMwK5xGEcEOmJmpYMxHGbX5pUPvuLME/514Jt9fxYVtZe0pU1IFe7GG2hxvMe
	 w8JfM1FwFFJVu3b6RbUXb98O8Gj4d8Za2mjuntG7Bhd6wGFk98J2xW3wFi03anzjpm
	 3D+PcWAwrOvNSBOtpyjjVTUEx30zOZT9+NsCB4+I=
From: "jeff.science at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/66409] Reporting ambiguous interface when overloading
 assignment with polymorphic array
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2022 06:53:22 +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: 4.9.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jeff.science at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
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-66409-4-MJAJA2FZNZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66409-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66409-4@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=3D66409

--- Comment #11 from Jeff Hammond <jeff.science at gmail dot com> ---
> program foo
>    use f
>    integer i
>    call test(i)
> end program
>=20
> which specific subroutine is called based on TKR?

I understand there is an ambiguity here, but what if I never make this call=
?=20
Is the module code incorrect?

Anyways, there was a lot of discussion of this on a few channels and it see=
ms
to not be required to work, although it's ambiguous whether compilers need =
to
catch it, and it seems that at least some compilers defer detection of the
issue until the ambiguous overload is actually used.=