[Bug fortran/33957] gfortran rejects valid initialization expression
--- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 22:40 --- Fixed. -- fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33957
[Bug fortran/33957] gfortran rejects valid initialization expression
--- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-16 22:38 --- Subject: Bug 33957 Author: fxcoudert Date: Fri Nov 16 22:38:21 2007 New Revision: 130246 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=130246 Log: PR fortran/33957 * gfortran.dg/initialization_15.f90 : New test. * expr.c (check_inquiry): Don't call gfc_error now. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/initialization_15.f90 Modified: trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/expr.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33957
[Bug fortran/33957] gfortran rejects valid initialization expression
--- Comment #5 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-09 01:25
---
The patch below should do it.
Index: expr.c
===
--- expr.c (revision 129869)
+++ expr.c (working copy)
@@ -1981,11 +1981,7 @@ check_inquiry (gfc_expr *e, int not_rest
break;
if (functions[i] == NULL)
-{
- gfc_error ("Inquiry function '%s' at %L is not permitted "
-"in an initialization expression", name, &e->where);
- return MATCH_ERROR;
-}
+return MATCH_ERROR;
/* At this point we have an inquiry function with a variable argument. The
type of the variable might be undefined, but we need it now, because the
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Keywords||patch
Last reconfirmed|2007-10-31 19:20:31 |2007-11-09 01:25:46
date||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33957
[Bug fortran/33957] gfortran rejects valid initialization expression
-- jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||32834 nThis|| Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-10-31 19:20:31 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33957
[Bug fortran/33957] gfortran rejects valid initialization expression
--- Comment #4 from tow21 at cam dot ac dot uk 2007-10-31 13:58 --- (Sorry for mis-typed example, I can't cut & paste from the VM I'm working in into my web-browser. Your corrected version is what I meant to type) Well I'm going from the F95 standard (which is the only one I have to hand; and in any case I am trying to write F95-compliant code here, so I'm not overly concerned about F2003 personally). F95 has no concept of a "specification inquiry" (that I can see). Section (7) of the definition of a "restricted expression" seems to cover mostly the same ground, and reads in full: (7) A reference to an intrinsic function that is (a) an array inquiry function (13.11.15) other than ALLOCATED, (b) the bit inquiry function BIT_SIZE (c) the character enquiry function LEN (d) the kind inquire function KIND, or (e) a numeric inquiry function (13.11.8) and where each argument of the function is (a) a restricted expression (b) a variable whose properties inquired about are not (i) dependent on the upper bound of the last dimension of an assumed-size array, (ii) defined by an expression that is not a restricted expression, or (iii) definable by an ALLOCATE or pointer assignment expression That is - the expression is not allowed under (7) - but it is under (8). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33957
[Bug fortran/33957] gfortran rejects valid initialization expression
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-10-31 13:33 --- (7) A specification inquiry where each designator or function argument is (a) a restricted expression or (b) a variable whose properties inquired about are not (i) dependent on the upper bound of the last dimension of an assumed-size array, (ii) deferred, or (iii) defined by an expression that is not a restricted expression, (8) A reference to any other standard intrinsic function where each argument is a restricted expression, A specification inquiry is a reference to (1) an array inquiry function (13.5.7), (2) the bit inquiry function BIT_SIZE, (3) the character inquiry function LEN, (4) the kind inquiry function KIND, (5) the character inquiry function NEW_LINE, (6) a numeric inquiry function (13.5.6), (7) a type parameter inquiry (6.1.3), or (8) an IEEE inquiry function (14.9.1), ASSOCIATED appears in 13.5.8, but is not listed above, so it is probably not a valid "specification inquiry" however this restriction seems lifted by (8) (it is probably the appropriate time to have a "simplified" F2003 draft!-). 13.5.8 Other inquiry functions ALLOCATED (ARRAY) or ALLOCATED (SCALAR) Allocation status ASSOCIATED (POINTER [, TARGET]) Association status inquiry or comparison BIT_SIZE (I) Number of bits of the model EXTENDS TYPE OF (A, MOLD) Same dynamic type or an extension LEN (STRING [, KIND]) Length of a character entity NEW_LINE (A) Newline character PRESENT (A) Argument presence SAME_TYPE_AS (A, B) Same dynamic type -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33957
[Bug fortran/33957] gfortran rejects valid initialization expression
--- Comment #2 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2007-10-31 13:17 ---
The test case is bogus (missing closing parenthesis and p is not a pointer). I
hope the following is valid:
! { dg-do compile }
function bug(i) result(c)
integer, pointer :: i
character(len=merge(1,2, associated(i))) :: c
c = ""
end function bug
it is accepted by xlf and g95 (with or without -std=f95).
If my understanding of the proc 'check_inquiry' in expr.c is correct,
'associated' is not in the set inquiry_func_f2003.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33957
[Bug fortran/33957] gfortran rejects valid initialization expression
--- Comment #1 from anlauf at gmx dot de 2007-10-31 12:59 --- (In reply to comment #0) > [...] > > (and indeed no other compiler I have access to has complained about this.) As a side note: xlf 9.1 says this is a F2003 feature and not a F95 feature. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33957
