https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69636
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
A slightly reduced & rewritten variant of the code in comment#6:
module m
implicit none
private
public :: cx, operator(+)
private :: cx_plus_int ! <- why does this make a difference?
type cx
integer :: re
end type
interface operator (+)
module procedure cx_plus_int
end interface
contains
function cx_plus_int (z, r)
entry int_plus_cx (r, z) ! <- why does this make a difference?
type(cx), intent(in) :: z
integer, intent(in) :: r
type(cx) :: cx_plus_int, int_plus_cx
cx_plus_int%re = z%re + r
end function
end module
program p
use m
type(cx) :: a = cx(1)
print *, (a + 2)
end
So there are multiple issues at work:
- the explicit "private :: cx_plus_int" should not make a difference;
I think I've seen a related PR
- adding an entry that is otherwise unused changes the module
- the modified module when read seems to obstruct finding cx_plus_int,
although the symbols still appears to be there...
