[Bug fortran/85448] Report binding label clash with a global identifyer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig --- Test case committed, closing.
[Bug fortran/85448] Report binding label clash with a global identifyer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Sun Apr 14 20:15:48 2019 New Revision: 270354 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270354=gcc=rev Log: 2019-04-14 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/85448 * gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_33.f90: New test and... * gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_33_c.c: Additional source. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_33.f90 trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_33_c.c Modified: trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
[Bug fortran/85448] Report binding label clash with a global identifyer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- With current trunk, I get $ gfortran od.c odopen.f90 $ ./a.out c_odopen odopen unit=8 $ gfortran od.c odopen.f90 $ ./a.out c_odopen odopen unit=8 $ which looks correct. So, I'm going to commit a test case (better safe than sorry) and close as fixed.
[Bug fortran/85448] Report binding label clash with a global identifyer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85448 --- Comment #8 from francois.jacq at irsn dot fr --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7) > As quoted by Steve Lionel on c.l.f (F2008, 16.2, para 2): > > "The global identifier of an entity shall not be the same as the global > identifier of any other entity. Furthermore, a > binding label shall not be the same as the global identifier of any other > global entity, ignoring differences in case." > > So, the code is invalid. Since this is not a constraint, the compiler > can do anything it pleases. > > It would be nice to have an error message, though; should be straightforward > to implement. Unfortunately, if you look into the comment #2, you will understand that the situation is a little bit more subtile.
