--- Comment #7 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-13 23:54
---
This is not a compiler bug.
--
jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from 1fhcwee02 at sneakemail dot com 2006-04-13 15:51
---
I was asked about this yesterday. I see my comments didn't make it here, so
I'll try putting them in myself with this new account. (No, I can't monitor bug
reports with any regularity; I can't even really keep up w
--- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 02:25
---
Looking at the standard:
Looking in the F95 Standard:
" NOTE 12.4
The dummy argument names may be different because the name of a dummy argument
is not a characteristic. "
Also, allowing the use of a keywor
--- Comment #4 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-12 01:24
---
I only have access to the free versions of Intel version 8.0 and version 9.0
and both gave aborted compilation on the test case for ambiguity.
Next step is to check the standards, which I presume Paul has done.
--- Comment #3 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-04-11
08:59 ---
Iguchi-san,
You are correct. The reference to foo with an integer argument is disambiguated
by the use of the keyword.
The only compiler that I have found that handles this correctly is DF5.0/6.0.
Domo
--- Comment #2 from iguchi at coral dot t dot u-tokyo dot ac dot jp
2006-04-11 05:15 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Intel does NOT agree with gfortran.
I think such discussion is not fruitful.
$ ifort --version
ifort (IFORT) 9.0 20060222
Copyright (C) 1985-2006 Intel Corporation. All r
--- Comment #1 from jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 05:02
---
Intel agrees with gfortran:
fortcom: Error: foofoo.f90, line 25: The type/rank/keyword signature for this
specific procedure matches another specific procedure that shares the same
generic-spec. [FOO2]
use m2
