[Bug fortran/49591] [OOP] Multiple identical specific procedures in type-bound operator not detected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591 --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-25 19:06:32 UTC --- Note that this PR is basically a duplicate of PR 41951, which contains a test case analogous to the M2 case.
[Bug fortran/49591] [OOP] Multiple identical specific procedures in type-bound operator not detected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27 17:38:11 UTC --- Author: janus Date: Wed Jun 27 17:38:00 2012 New Revision: 189022 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=189022 Log: 2012-06-27 Janus Weil PR fortran/41951 PR fortran/49591 * interface.c (check_new_interface): Rename, add 'loc' argument, make non-static. (gfc_add_interface): Rename 'check_new_interface' * gfortran.h (gfc_check_new_interface): Add prototype. * resolve.c (resolve_typebound_intrinsic_op): Add typebound operator targets to non-typebound operator list. 2012-06-27 Janus Weil PR fortran/41951 PR fortran/49591 * gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_16.f03: New. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/typebound_operator_16.f03 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h trunk/gcc/fortran/interface.c trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug fortran/49591] [OOP] Multiple identical specific procedures in type-bound operator not detected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |janus at gcc dot gnu.org |gnu.org | --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-27 17:51:10 UTC --- Fixed with r189022. Closing.
[Bug fortran/49591] [OOP] Multiple identical specific procedures in type-bound operator not detected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed||2011.08.04 16:49:55 Summary|[OOP] Multiple identical|[OOP] Multiple identical |specific procedures in |specific procedures in |type-bound generic not |type-bound operator not |detected|detected Ever Confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-04 16:49:55 UTC --- Adjusting title. The problem really only applies to (type-bound) *operators*, right?
[Bug fortran/49591] [OOP] Multiple identical specific procedures in type-bound operator not detected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-04 19:36:03 UTC --- I think I found the place where this example came from, though at that point it probably was not yet on the server: http://www.j3-fortran.org/doc/meeting/195/11-214.txt
[Bug fortran/49591] [OOP] Multiple identical specific procedures in type-bound operator not detected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus 2011-08-04 19:39:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Adjusting title. The problem really only applies to (type-bound) *operators*, > right? No idea. The example is, but I don't know whether other generics are properly checked for ambiguity or not.
[Bug fortran/49591] [OOP] Multiple identical specific procedures in type-bound operator not detected
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591 --- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-04 20:05:28 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Adjusting title. The problem really only applies to (type-bound) > > *operators*, > > right? > > No idea. The example is, but I don't know whether other generics are properly > checked for ambiguity or not. Well, I think they should be (but one should re-check this). Anyway the second example (M2) is constructed in such a way that it only applies to operators: One bound to a type, the other not. For generics one can distinguish whether the type-bound version is called or not. The first example (M1), on the other hand, could also be constructed with two type-bound generics of same name, bound to different types. But then again, the pass-argument can be determined uniquely, so there is no ambiguity about which type-bound generic should be called. For generics the situation is different due to the different syntax of invocation (both operands could be the pass-argument). When both versions are bound to the same specific procedure, one could as well take a "so what?" POV, because it doesn't matter which version you call. For me, the more problematic case is the one where both operators are bound to different specifics, but with the same interface. There you have the same ambiguity as to which one to call, but the results will differ depending on your decision. This case we probably also fail to reject (haven't checked, though).
[Bug fortran/49591] [OOP] Multiple identical specific procedures in type-bound operator not detected
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49591 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
