This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug fortran/52333] Explicit etime interface should work
- From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:16:21 +0000
- Subject: [Bug fortran/52333] Explicit etime interface should work
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-52333-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52333
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> 2012-02-22 04:16:21 UTC ---
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:40:12AM +0000, pablomme at googlemail dot com wrote:
>
> So ifort seems to agree with gfortran in its error messages that providing an
> explicit interface to a function implies that the function is EXTERNAL, and
> that INTRINSIC is incompatible with EXTERNAL. This seems inconsistent with its
> using the intrinsic version if etime when an explicit interface is present, but
> there you go..
>
Thanks for testing. This points at the other
can of worms I mentions. Old code sometimes
contains 'external etime', and gfortran will
expect a user supplied routine. It will not
use _gfortran_etime until the programmer
removes the offending statement. I've closed
a few bug reports about this and have taken
some heat about gfortran's behavior. In the
end, we decided that the libgfortran namespace
should be segregated from the user's namespace.