From 554fd8c5195424bdbcabf5de30fdc183aba391bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: upstream source tree Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 20:14:05 -0400 Subject: obtained gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2 from upstream website; verified gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2.sig; imported gcc-4.6.4 source tree from verified upstream tarball. downloading a git-generated archive based on the 'upstream' tag should provide you with a source tree that is binary identical to the one extracted from the above tarball. if you have obtained the source via the command 'git clone', however, do note that line-endings of files in your working directory might differ from line-endings of the respective files in the upstream repository. --- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_6.f90 | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_6.f90 (limited to 'gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_6.f90') diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_6.f90 b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_6.f90 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..52fa55460 --- /dev/null +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/used_types_6.f90 @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +! { dg-do compile } +! Tests the fix for a further regression caused by the +! fix for PR28788, as noted in reply #13 in the Bugzilla +! entry by Martin Tee . +! The problem was caused by contained, use associated +! derived types with pointer components of a derived type +! use associated in a sibling procedure, where both are +! associated by an ONLY clause. This is the reporter's +! test case. +! +MODULE type_mod + TYPE a + INTEGER :: n(10) + END TYPE a + + TYPE b + TYPE (a), POINTER :: m(:) => NULL () + END TYPE b +END MODULE type_mod + +MODULE seg_mod +CONTAINS + SUBROUTINE foo (x) + USE type_mod, ONLY : a ! failed + IMPLICIT NONE + TYPE (a) :: x + RETURN + END SUBROUTINE foo + + SUBROUTINE bar (x) + USE type_mod, ONLY : b ! failed + IMPLICIT NONE + TYPE (b) :: x + RETURN + END SUBROUTINE bar +END MODULE seg_mod +! { dg-final { cleanup-modules "type_mod seg_mod" } } -- cgit v1.2.3