Quoting Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 02:01:43PM +0100, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [ Bringing this back to fortran@, taking the optimizer guys out of CC: ] > > > > Quoting Toon Moene: > > > I still have to construct a bug report of something that confuses the > parser > > > and that basically looks like this: > > > > > > IMPLICIT CHARACTER*8 (Y) > > > CHARACTER*11 Y1, Y2, Y3 > > > ... > > > YA = 'D' // Y1 // Y2(1:3) // Y3(1:3) // > > > 1 // YB(1:5) > > > 1 > > > Unclassifiable statement at (1) > > > > > > Unfortunately, if I reduce the code to this one (continued) line and the > > > necessary declarations, it doesn't fail ;-) > > > > Does this fail as long as you keep the type implicit? This reminds me of > > another PR, where the parser would decide too early that it had seen an > array > > range instead of a substring, which would lead to these kinds of niceties > > further down the line. Unfortunately, I couldn't find this bug in > bugzilla, > > looks like its PR's summary is not very descriptive. > > You mean PR18833?
Yes, but I don't have time right now to investigate if this is indeed the same parser problem. The patch for 18833 only added a special case for EQUIVALENCEs, so it might well be. - Tobi