public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/96839] New: gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block
@ 2020-08-28 21:13 w.clodius at icloud dot com
2020-08-29 14:17 ` [Bug fortran/96839] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: w.clodius at icloud dot com @ 2020-08-28 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839
Bug ID: 96839
Summary: gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: w.clodius at icloud dot com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 49151
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49151&action=edit
A reduced code illustrating the problem.
If I have both a member function named bits and an attribute named bits, a
combination that is illegal, gfortran 8.1 gets confused and thinks common_bits
starts a common block. It took me a while to understand the cause of the error
message.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/96839] gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block
2020-08-28 21:13 [Bug fortran/96839] New: gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block w.clodius at icloud dot com
@ 2020-08-29 14:17 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2020-08-29 15:13 ` w.clodius at icloud dot com
2020-12-02 20:46 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2020-08-29 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Priority|P3 |P4
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed| |2020-08-29
--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
With GCC10 and 11 the errors are
pr96839.f90:47:38:
47 | common_bits = min(self % bits, set2 % bits)
| 1
Error: Expected argument list at (1)
pr96839.f90:57:25:
57 | bits = self % bits
| 1
Error: Expected argument list at (1)
pr96839.f90:25:17:
25 | procedure, pass(self) :: bits
| 1
Error: Procedure 'bits' at (1) has the same name as a component of 'bitset_t'
With GCC7 to GCC9 the first error is replaced with
pr96839.f90:47:14:
47 | common_bits = min(self % bits, set2 % bits)
| 1
Error: Syntax error in COMMON statement at (1)
Could this PR be considered as FIXED?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/96839] gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block
2020-08-28 21:13 [Bug fortran/96839] New: gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block w.clodius at icloud dot com
2020-08-29 14:17 ` [Bug fortran/96839] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
@ 2020-08-29 15:13 ` w.clodius at icloud dot com
2020-12-02 20:46 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: w.clodius at icloud dot com @ 2020-08-29 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839
--- Comment #2 from William Clodius <w.clodius at icloud dot com> ---
I think so.
> On Aug 29, 2020, at 8:17 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839
>
> Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
> Priority|P3 |P4
> Ever confirmed|0 |1
> Last reconfirmed| |2020-08-29
>
> --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> With GCC10 and 11 the errors are
>
> pr96839.f90:47:38:
>
> 47 | common_bits = min(self % bits, set2 % bits)
> | 1
> Error: Expected argument list at (1)
> pr96839.f90:57:25:
>
> 57 | bits = self % bits
> | 1
> Error: Expected argument list at (1)
> pr96839.f90:25:17:
>
> 25 | procedure, pass(self) :: bits
> | 1
> Error: Procedure 'bits' at (1) has the same name as a component of 'bitset_t'
>
> With GCC7 to GCC9 the first error is replaced with
>
> pr96839.f90:47:14:
>
> 47 | common_bits = min(self % bits, set2 % bits)
> | 1
> Error: Syntax error in COMMON statement at (1)
>
> Could this PR be considered as FIXED?
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You reported the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug fortran/96839] gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block
2020-08-28 21:13 [Bug fortran/96839] New: gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block w.clodius at icloud dot com
2020-08-29 14:17 ` [Bug fortran/96839] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2020-08-29 15:13 ` w.clodius at icloud dot com
@ 2020-12-02 20:46 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr @ 2020-12-02 20:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839
Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
> > Could this PR be considered as FIXED?
>
> I think so.
No objection since three months, closing.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-12-02 20:46 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-08-28 21:13 [Bug fortran/96839] New: gfortran thinks common_bits starts a common block w.clodius at icloud dot com
2020-08-29 14:17 ` [Bug fortran/96839] " dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2020-08-29 15:13 ` w.clodius at icloud dot com
2020-12-02 20:46 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).