https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022
--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> --- On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 05:54:43PM +0000, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98022 > > --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > The example that you give shows that setting the undefined part to zero > certainly is not correct. I updated my tree for the commit and am only just > now > rebuilding. It'll be tomorrow before I put this right. > > I guess that this is in the category of invalid but not forbidden. It's in the > same category as: > complex :: a, b > a%im = 1.0 > b = a > print *, a, b > end > Yes, it's invalid under the same portion of section 19 I quoted earlier. 'a' is undefined because 'a%re' is undefined. I cannot find anything in the Standard that requires an error or a warning message.
