https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103367
--- Comment #23 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #22) > I have the following going with a draft patch. Is this what we are looking > for? The legacy extension stuff is noise. I could add implicit none or not > use a real as an index. Regardless, this plugs some holes. I noticed that > when I was backporting for PR60576, even though it applied OK, the same > tests failed there as failed here in comment #14. That suspicious even > though the fix for pr60576 has nothing to do with this one. The patch that > got me here is actually three small ones I need to squash and cleanup yet. Well, with "implicit none" one would have errors different from the case with variables that are used in constant expressions, and this is also different from indices of type "real". So there can be different errors paths.
