[patch, fortran] fix for PR 60780, PR 40958

[russelldub .]

>> The change may be small enough that an assignment isn't needed.
>> We (ie, the gfortran developers) will need to check.
>
> I think that’s small enough, compared to what we’ve accepted as such in the past.
> If not, a disclaimer by Russell putting his change in the public domain would also be a quick way: https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal

Let me know either way.

> Regarding the patch itself, it seems OK. (I first wondered if the strcmp() is necessary, but it appears module strings at this point are not GCC identifiers, but normal strings.)

That was my understanding.  At any rate, I based the logic on the
existing check for unused equivalences.

> Russell, you said “tested on x86_64-linux”. Could you explicitly confirm that you have bootstrapped it and regression-tested the full gfortran testsuite ?

Yes, as long as `make check-fortran` is the full gfortran testsuite.

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 4:08 AM, FX <fxcoudert@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The change may be small enough that an assignment isn't needed.
>> We (ie, the gfortran developers) will need to check.
>
> I think that’s small enough, compared to what we’ve accepted as such in the past.
> If not, a disclaimer by Russell putting his change in the public domain would also be a quick way: https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal
>
>> Having an assignment will help when you submit additional patches. :-)
>
> Indeed!
>
>
> Regarding the patch itself, it seems OK. (I first wondered if the strcmp() is necessary, but it appears module strings at this point are not GCC identifiers, but normal strings.)
>
> Russell, you said “tested on x86_64-linux”. Could you explicitly confirm that you have bootstrapped it and regression-tested the full gfortran testsuite ?
>
> Cheers,
> FX