[PATCH, fortran] Constraints for equivalence members and private types - Ping

[Paul Thomas]

Tobi,

>I think an error message should preferably point to the place where the error
>occurs.
>
>EQUIVALENCE(i,j)
>! <--- code perfectly valid until here
>integer, target :: i   ! <--- this line tries to do something wrong
>
>whereas
>
>integer, target :: i
>! <--- code perfectly valid until here
>EQUIVALENCE(i,j)   ! <--- this line tries to do something wrong
>  
>
Yes, indeed, that is the logic of check_conflict.  It is a pity that the 
attributes cannot flip around in the message.

>I can see why one could like to have the error associated with the EQUIVALENCE
>-- after all, the constraint that is violated is given together with the
>syntax of EQUIVALENCE in the standard, 
>
Exactly.  That is why I marginally prefer the messages to be 
concentrated in resolve_equivalence.

>but given the fact that adding new
>conflicts is really easy, and keeps this code in one place without adding new
>passes to resolution, I like this better.
>  
>
Then I shall make it so.

Paul T