------- Comment #5 from paulthomas2 at wanadoo dot fr 2008-01-27 07:09 ------- Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] Bogus error with USEing modules
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-27 00:14 > ------- > >> If the ONLY's i test.f90 are removed, it builds fine >> > Actually, also removing a single dummy argument (e.g. "df") and it builds > fine. > I think somewhere the tree might be walked wrongly. The question is only > where. > > Looking at gfc_get_sym_tree, one sees that i and ipol are created twice in ns > = > gfc_ns_current (= 0x17f7d80). "n" itself appears directly after the symbol > "complex" has been created, which means that it has not been added in > module.c? > Except for "gfc_check_interfaces" gfc_ns_current does not seem to be touched > anywhere and that routine resets it. > This is what I am alluding to in the PR - the "hidden." prefix is screwing up the placement of new symbols - i and ipol, which are already present because they are dummies, get missed and new copies added at the type declaration. I have a partial patch working, which causes another regression for reasons that I understand. I'll try to get something out of the door in the next 24 hours. Paul > The error message at the end comes via gfc_parse_file's call to "gfc_resolve > (gfc_current_ns)". > > > -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34975
