Re: Is this legal?
- From: Salvatore <sfilippone@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 09:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
On 30 Mag, 20:12, Craig Powers <craig.pow...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Salvatore wrote:
On 30 Mag, 08:40, robert.corb...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On May 29, 7:07 am, Salvatore <sfilipp...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Before someone asks, the error is about the renaming of the specificCan you provide the text of the error message?
versions of foobar
as in
use foo_mod, protect => s_foobar
Bob Corbett
Actually the culprit is gfortran, the error message is
Error: Name 'foobar' at (1) is an ambiguous reference to 'foobar' from
module 's_foo_mod'
At first I thought it was about the renaming, but it seems to be
something more fundamental; anyway there is nothing ambiguous in this
example (at least, nothing that I can see, and Richard Maine seems to
think the same).
Which version of gfortran? I know that there have been some hiccups
with handling ambiguity (or lack of some) properly, so you may have run
into a bug which was fixed in 4.3 or newer.
It's in both 4.3.0 and in the development snapshot. The issue has
already been notifed to the GCC/gfortran crew.
Salvatore
.
- References:
- Is this legal?
- From: Salvatore
- Re: Is this legal?
- From: Salvatore
- Re: Is this legal?
- From: robert . corbett
- Re: Is this legal?
- From: Salvatore
- Re: Is this legal?
- From: Craig Powers
- Is this legal?
- Prev by Date: Re: NYT disses Fortran
- Next by Date: Re: Fortran 90 Chess
- Previous by thread: Re: Is this legal?
- Next by thread: public/private and overloaded operator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|