https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009
--- Comment #7 from Walt Brainerd <walt.brainerd at gmail dot com> --- I took "not processed by" to mean that there is no DT edit descriptor corresponding to it. But I see how this might be interpreted otherwise. Intel agrees with me FWIW. Maybe this is a question for J3 (or perhaps first, c.l.f?). Thanks for thinking about this. On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 2:28 PM, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80009 > > --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Walt Brainerd from comment #1) > > Forgot to add: > > > > Pls see F08 std 9.6.3(7) 2nd bullet > > I see: > > BULLET: If a list item of derived type in a formatted input/output > statement is > not processed by a defined input/output procedure, that list item is > treated as > if all of the components of the list item were specified in the list in > component order; those components shall be accessible in the scoping unit > containing the > input/output statement and shall not be pointers or allocatable. > > In your case you have provided a defined output procedure. So this is what > it > is trying to do. see 'if' ... 'not processed by' above. > > Do I have the right place in the standard you were looking at? Maybe we > are not > interpreting that correctly? > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug. >
