http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50438
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-27 11:33:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Here is a simple patch to avoid this:
>
> [...]
>
> It cures both test cases, but I'm pretty sure it will have quite a number of
> testsuite failures (haven't checked yet).
The patch from comment #3 indeed shows a huge number of failures (as expected).
> If we remove it here,
> 'gfc_reduce_init_expr' should be called somewhere at resolution stage, of
> course! We just need a suitable place for doing this ...
e.g. something like 'resolve_values' or 'resolve_structure_cons'?
However, I'm thinking that this approach may be too big of a hammer for the
problem at hand. A somewhat less invasive patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/expr.c (revision 198155)
+++ gcc/fortran/expr.c (working copy)
@@ -2522,6 +2522,8 @@ gfc_check_init_expr (gfc_expr *e)
break;
}
+ else if (e->symtree->n.sym->attr.flavor == FL_PROCEDURE)
+ break;
if (gfc_in_match_data ())
break;
This is also sufficient to remove the error. Regtesting now ...
