http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46313
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-09 11:54:18 UTC ---
r166480 fixes the original test case.
As Tobias pointed out at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-11/msg00120.html
there may be additional problems when defining derived ty
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46313
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-09 10:39:52 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 9 10:39:46 2010
New Revision: 166480
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=166480
Log:
2010-11-09 Janus Weil
PR fortran/4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46313
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46313
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-06 00:37:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
>
> Namespace: A-Z: (UNKNOWN 0)
> procedure name = MAIN__
> symtree: 'MAIN__' || symbol: 'MAIN__'
> type spec : (UNKNOWN 0)
> at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46313
--- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl
2010-11-05 16:04:31 UTC ---
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:46:14PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> -fdump-parse-tree suggests that the parsing of class(t2) :: b1, b2
> is not picking up the renamed type.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46313
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
