This was caused by my inquiry ref patch.
I will commit to both branches tomorrow night unless there is an objection.
Bootstraps and regtests on FC29/x86_64.
Paul
2019-09-02 Paul Thomas <pa...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/91589
* primary.c (gfc_match_varspec): Return MATCH_NO on an apparent
component ref, when the primary type is not derived, class or
unknown.
2019-09-02 Paul Thomas <pa...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran/91589
* gfortran.dg/pr91589.f90 : New test.
Index: gcc/fortran/primary.c
===================================================================
*** gcc/fortran/primary.c (revision 275268)
--- gcc/fortran/primary.c (working copy)
*************** gfc_match_varspec (gfc_expr *primary, in
*** 2237,2242 ****
--- 2237,2244 ----
inquiry = is_inquiry_ref (name, &tmp);
if (inquiry)
sym = NULL;
+ else if (primary->ts.type != BT_UNKNOWN)
+ return MATCH_NO;
}
else
inquiry = false;
*************** gfc_variable_attr (gfc_expr *expr, gfc_t
*** 2598,2604 ****
case AR_UNKNOWN:
/* For standard conforming code, AR_UNKNOWN should not happen.
! For nonconforming code, gfortran can end up here. Treat it
as a no-op. */
break;
}
--- 2600,2606 ----
case AR_UNKNOWN:
/* For standard conforming code, AR_UNKNOWN should not happen.
! For nonconforming code, gfortran can end up here. Treat it
as a no-op. */
break;
}
Index: gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr91589.f90
===================================================================
*** gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr91589.f90 (nonexistent)
--- gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr91589.f90 (working copy)
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,14 ----
+ ! { dg-do compile }
+ !
+ ! Check the fix for PR91589, in which the invalid expression caused an ICE.
+ !
+ ! Contributed by Gerhardt Steinmetz <gs...@t-online.de>
+ !
+ program p
+ type t
+ integer :: a
+ end type
+ type(t) :: x = t(1)
+ call sub (x%a%a) ! { dg-error "Syntax error in argument list" }
+ end
+
