> A colleague has discovered a problem in a library that I wrote. Being
> a good `debugger', he has already distilled a minimal skeleton from my
> code:
>
> module foo1
> type, public :: xx
> integer :: i
> end type xx
> end module foo1
First, the compiler can do whatever it wants, since your code is
nonstandard:
%F90-W-WARNING, Extension to FORTRAN-90: tab formatting
at line number 3 in file DISK$SCRATCH:[HELBIG]TO.F90;1
:-)
> while NAG f95 accepts the source and produces correct code. We both
> think that DIGITAL Fortran is incorrect and that my code is correct.
> What's the opinion of the board's combined expertise?
> f90: Error: foo.f90, line 25: The same named entity from different
> modules and/or program units cannot be referenced. [XX]
> type(xx), intent(in) :: x
> ---------^
I get
type(xx), intent(in) :: x
.............^
%F90-E-ERROR, The same named entity from different modules and/or program units
cannot be referenced. [XX]
at line number 25 in file DISK$SCRATCH:[HELBIG]TO.F90;1
which is not surprising since my compiler has the same backend. (Does
DVF really give the source line AFTER the error?)
Puzzling, at least to me, is
subroutine foobar(x)
........................^
%F90-W-WARNING, This name has not been given an explicit type. [X]
at line number 24 in file DISK$SCRATCH:[HELBIG]TO.F90;1
For what it's worth, XLF doesn't complain.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|