------- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-31 20:02 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> > The question becomes whether the 'I' in the implied-do-loop is
> > being used uninitialized.
>
> From comment #3, I think the 'i' in "i,i=" should not be the same as the 'i'
> in
> "=1,i".
Well, it still comes back to scope. The implied-do-loop is
different from
integer j(5)
I=5
j = 42
do i = 1, I
j(i) = i
end do
print '(A,I0,A,5(I0,1X))', 'I = ', I, ' j = ', j
end
because in the above 'i' and 'I' are in the same scoping unit.
If you write 'i = 5; j = [(i,i=1,I)]' then the 'i' here is in
a different scoping unit. I agree that the scalar-int-expr
'1' and 'I' need to be evaluated to establish the the loop
start and stop values. The question again based on scoping
unit is whether 'I' is uninitialized.
> > Confirmed. However, having this in real world codes seems like the best way
> > to
> > confuse people.
>
> Agreed!-) I am always baffled by the users' talent to make their life
> miserable.
> Nevertheless the compiler should follow the standard, i.e., from my
> understanding of the construct, print the 1 to 5 sequence.
>
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44354
