https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839
--- Comment #2 from William Clodius <w.clodius at icloud dot com> --- I think so. > On Aug 29, 2020, at 8:17 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr > <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96839 > > Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING > Priority|P3 |P4 > Ever confirmed|0 |1 > Last reconfirmed| |2020-08-29 > > --- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > With GCC10 and 11 the errors are > > pr96839.f90:47:38: > > 47 | common_bits = min(self % bits, set2 % bits) > | 1 > Error: Expected argument list at (1) > pr96839.f90:57:25: > > 57 | bits = self % bits > | 1 > Error: Expected argument list at (1) > pr96839.f90:25:17: > > 25 | procedure, pass(self) :: bits > | 1 > Error: Procedure 'bits' at (1) has the same name as a component of 'bitset_t' > > With GCC7 to GCC9 the first error is replaced with > > pr96839.f90:47:14: > > 47 | common_bits = min(self % bits, set2 % bits) > | 1 > Error: Syntax error in COMMON statement at (1) > > Could this PR be considered as FIXED? > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug.
