--- Comment #6 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-08 12:31 ---
Subject: Bug 30973
Author: burnus
Date: Thu Mar 8 12:30:58 2007
New Revision: 122696
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122696
Log:
2007-03-08 Tobias Burnus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR fort
--- Comment #5 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-02-27 17:46 ---
Subject: Bug number PR30973
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg02134.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-27 17:44 ---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg02134.html
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-26 21:36 ---
> Tobias, the same happens if the MODULE foo contains anything and the ONLY part
> actually lists something. I omitted this to keep the testcase short.
Good news. That means that indicates that my patch does the righ
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-26 16:54 ---
Tobias, the same happens if the MODULE foo contains anything and the ONLY part
actually lists something. I omitted this to keep the testcase short.
Same problem here:
$> cat foo2.f90
MODULE foo
INTEGER :: x
END MOD
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-26 16:47 ---
I checked: " USE foo, ONLY:" is syntactically correct.
The problem is that "only_flag = 1;" and no symbol is in the only-list.
I think one needs to modify module.c's "read_module", but I fail quickly to see
were th
