Erroneous error message

[everythingfunctional]

I am trying to convert an existing project to using fpm. Unfortunately (or maybe not), fpm complains about an invalid module name for something that is not defining a module. Granted this is not the kind of code I'd ever expect to actually encounter, but it is something to consider. The specific error message is:

Parse error: empty or invalid name for module
././src/pfm/distributions_m.f90:52:12
   |     module real*8 function get_log_logistic_p(x,a,b,c)
   |            ^

This is at an intermediate step in converting some legacy code, so that real*8 will get removed, but this is a general situation that could arise that the parser needs to handle. The idea is that for module <other_stuff> function | subroutine, this isn't defining a module, so just skip it.

[LKedward]

Thanks for reporting - I'll look at putting together a fix for this case. I'm hoping to push some improvements to the source parsing module in the future to improve robustness and maintainability.

[everythingfunctional]

Just as additional info, I also got a duplicate module error on the same project due to declarations like module double precision function after fixing that issue. It would be nice if that error message included the name of the module it thinks is a duplicate, as that one took me a bit to work out.

[LKedward]

@everythingfunctional, are you sure it didn't print the names of the duplicate modules?.
The code linked below should print the duplicates:

fpm/src/fpm.f90

Lines 233 to 234 in 87a2cbf

	write(error_unit, *) "Warning: Module ",model%packages(k)%sources(l)%modules_provided(m)%s, &
	" in ",model%packages(k)%sources(l)%file_name," is a duplicate"

[everythingfunctional]

@LKedward I think maybe I just missed it. I just tried to reproduce it and got this:

Warning: Module double in ././src/pfm/radiation_shift_m.f90 is a duplicate

So maybe I just didn't realize that double was the name of the module it thought it found. Maybe we should put quotes around the module name to make it clearer?