The following code does not compile unless I remove the equivalence statement:
module one
implicit none
save
type mytype
sequence
integer :: i = 42
integer :: j = 67
integer :: k = 76
end type
! Instantiate sequence type
type (mytype) :: me
! Establish common block
integer :: i,j,k
common /xx/ i,j,k
! Eqv type with common
equivalence (me, i)
end module one
!-----------------------------------------------------------
module two
! Restrict access through seq type only (not /xx/)
use one, only: me
implicit none
private
! Allow access through use association
public :: me
contains
subroutine sub
print *, "I = ",me%i
end subroutine
end module two
!-----------------------------------------------------------
program test
use two
implicit none
print *, "I = ",me%i
end program
!-----------------------------------------------------------
The compiler error is as follows:
test.f90(49): error #6404: This name does not have a type, and must have an explicit type. [ME]
print *, "I = ",me%i
----------------^
test.f90(49): error #6460: This is not a field name that is defined in the encompassing structure.
print *, "I = ",me%i
-------------------^
Note that it does not complain about the usage on line 39. I can't find anything in the texts that I have that would suggest this isn't allowed. Without the equivalence statement, everything compiles and runs just fine, and the "public" ME variable accessible through use association works as expected. Could this be a flaw in the compiler? Or am I missing something in the standard?
