Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 52024 - fix .mod issue with type-bound operator check

2012-02-01 Thread Mikael Morin
On 31.01.2012 23:41, Tobias Burnus wrote: Tobias Burnus wrote: Unfortunately, it turns out that the check does not handle inheritance well. At least I would expect that the attached test case is valid (and it compiles with NAG 5.1), but it is rejected with GCC 4.6 and 4.7. Actually, I

[Patch, Fortran] PR 52024 - fix .mod issue with type-bound operator check

2012-01-31 Thread Tobias Burnus
Dear all, my just committed patch which checks type-bound operators for ambiguity missed a handling of module files. The attached patch adds one. Unfortunately, it turns out that the check does not handle inheritance well. At least I would expect that the attached test case is valid (and it

Re: [Patch, Fortran] PR 52024 - fix .mod issue with type-bound operator check

2012-01-31 Thread Tobias Burnus
Tobias Burnus wrote: Unfortunately, it turns out that the check does not handle inheritance well. At least I would expect that the attached test case is valid (and it compiles with NAG 5.1), but it is rejected with GCC 4.6 and 4.7. Actually, I withdraw that comment. I now believe that gt_cmp