https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922
--- Comment #5 from William Clodius <w.clodius at icloud dot com> --- The code is definitely invalid, but the misleading error message did result in significant time lost by assuming the message was correct as to the problem. Note several other attempts to fix the problem resulted in the same message. > On Mar 21, 2018, at 7:28 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr > <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84922 > > Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Priority|P3 |P4 > Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW > Last reconfirmed| |2018-03-21 > Target Milestone|--- |8.0 > Ever confirmed|0 |1 > > --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> --- > Confirmed from 6.4.0 up to trunk (8.0). The code compiles if the interface is > removed from the module or the subroutine copy_byte_data is moved from the > CONTAINS to its own TU. > > As hinted in comment 1, I think the code is invalid, but it should be rejected > with a better error message. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug.
