https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
--- Comment #8 from Jerry DeLisle ---
FWIW : I think the typespec is being lost because the initial call into
gfc_match_array_constructor which finds and matches the typespec sets a local
variable seen_ts which is used later in that function to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
--- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I should mention, this also fails:
print *, [real:: ((/2, 3/))] ** 2
So we also have to deal with this. I think I have it figured out.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I had to go back in the Standard to deepen my understanding. Yes simplifying
it would help. I think what we need to do is acknowledge that we should match
'(' and if found, recursively call the gfc_match_a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Well folks, I like to document my thought process.
>From the 2022 draft standard we have:
R781 ac-value is expr or ac-implied-do
R782 ac-implied-do is ( ac-value-list , ac-implied-do-control )
In our
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
--- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle ---
I have a copy of the standard so I will answer my own question. This is a
comment:
In a situation like this:
print *, [integer :: ([1.0])] ** 2
My brain wants to say reject it because 1.0 is not an inte
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jvdelisle at gcc dot
gnu.org
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gs...@t-online.de
--- Comment #1 from J
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC|
