This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37274 - [Regression] error: type name is ambiguous and PR36374 - nested module inclusion fails
- From: "Paul Richard Thomas" <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- To: salvatore dot filippone at uniroma2 dot it
- Cc: "Fortran List" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:20:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, fortran] PR37274 - [Regression] error: type name is ambiguous and PR36374 - nested module inclusion fails
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=rpuq7lbJtlGYIyt3nSHdPVxeL1PeV+VWDEU0UJCefbc=; b=QS3Boaqgi7gjPbNnn4ooCmP5mRBeNTQ7jd8pIdKQ5hyo49aXCwlX+wVjtbwhayg3D7 yoTh0i65tBHjlWEDZQZqrDB5O21WToyQrYO0J1lzD4yZp9nLq5CiBO6dXtNOmUTCX0JD WR2ZpNP+1m320Nd5EKK7C8NokHDUjH52YyApQ=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=IISA4r2Vu6taXM79d1OOd2QOjt63IhWkrBCIgOaUbdBz82k+cOcYw/fEAUQIFN1zsA Ae3PQhzLCBGX0xEGQ22Magk9cALUitJA3pYEvwjbfr1TucqfZKeIEdcALUoHtRj7yCwE Y38iX6+pCOWJ//QHQ++XuCnrfMdx1sKfnHYDI=
- References: <339c37f20809040135v71f39be8v52837a01a4bac348@mail.gmail.com> <1220518604.3341.10.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Salvatore,
> Hmmmm. Forgive me if I'm being naive, but just by reading the patch
> code, and not knowing the rest, I am not sure what happens in case of a
> real ambiguity, such as trying to add to the same generic two different
> routines that use indistinguishable arguments. Could you ease my concern
> and confirm that they are resolved in the following mini-example?
Yes, they are correctly resolved, whether the generic 'foobar' is
referenced or not.
I should explain that the patch determines whether or not the symbol
'foobar' is ambiguous or not. The question of the interfaces is
handled elsewhere.
I think that I might well add your testcase, if I do not see an
equivalent in the testsuite.
Cheers
Paul