http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42769
Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #31 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-23
23:08:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> This seems to be a module-loading bug. When reading the specific binding of
> the
> TBP 'get' from 'mod1' (which happens in module.c, mio_typebound_proc), we
> expect to get the symbol 'my_get' from 'mod1', but instead we get 'my_get'
> from
> 'mod2'.
>
> My knowledge of the module-reading code is not sufficient to see where stuff
> goes wrong. Maybe someone else can?
This is not a module loading problem I think.
It's true that the two `my_get' functions do conflict in the program namespace.
One does not need to pass by the program namespace to resolve the typebound
call however.
That is, the gfc_typebound_proc.u.specific field should be a gfc_symbol, not a
gfc_symtree.
This way, even if that gfc_symbol is not accessible through a gfc_symtree in
the program namespace, it is loaded anyway (and gets a unique symtree but this
is an implementation detail) because it is needed in the gfc_typebound_proc
struct.
That being said, I suppose there is a reason for it to be a gfc_symtree, and
not a gfc_symbol.
