https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
--- Comment #9 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> In comment 6
>
> * gfortran.dg/warn_unused_function_2.f90: New test.
>
> should be
>
> * gfortran.dg/module_private_2.f90: New test.
>
> The
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Nov 13 11:03:40 2015
New Revision: 230299
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230299&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-13 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/47266
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: dominiq
Date: Fri Nov 13 10:58:53 2015
New Revision: 230298
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=230298&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-11-13 Dominique d'Humieres
PR fortran/47266
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Assuming that the test gfortran.dg/module_private_2.f90 at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-01/msg00094.html is intended to cover the
issue at hand and considering that adding the test to the gfortra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-15
11:05:06 UTC ---
Another note: Seemingly, the current patch does not work, if the default access
mode is "PRIVATE" and only if one explicitly sets the privacy. (Which is a
missed optimization.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47266
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-01-15
11:03:13 UTC ---
Submitted patch: See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2011-01/msg00094.html
There were additional restrictions with BIND(C) - and as Ian pointed out, there
are also issues when using the