This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 46448: [4.6 Regression] symbol `__copy_...' is already defined

From: Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at netcologne dot de>
To: Janus Weil <janus at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Cc: gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 09:27:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 46448: [4.6 Regression] symbol `__copy_...' is already defined
References: <AANLkTikS7=NwycCnWQm8G70r2Q6n6-3uSa3Fo4UH0mve@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinty78SSUAn_x=Ds4cO0DQJB3Ym57sFW_dhkXT+@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Janus,

> One simple alternative that just came to my mind: The whole problem
> would go away if the __copy_ routine would undergo the same name
> mangling as all standard module procedures, i.e. getting a prefix like
> "__m1_" or "__m2_". When looking for the reason, I came up with the
> attached two-line patch, which seems to fix the issue for both the
> single-file as well as multi-file setup, and is much simpler than the
> previous approach (not regtested yet).

this approach looks very good.

OK if it passes regtesting.

Thanks for the patch!

	Thomas

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 46448: [4.6 Regression] symbol `__copy_...' is already defined
  - From: Janus Weil

References:
- [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 46448: [4.6 Regression] symbol `__copy_...' is already defined
  - From: Janus Weil
- Re: [Patch, Fortran, OOP] PR 46448: [4.6 Regression] symbol `__copy_...' is already defined
  - From: Janus Weil

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]