https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-03-22
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
--- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:27:58PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> So, there is a chunk of code in decl.cc(4682-4689 or so),
>
> if (implicit_flag == 1)
> {
> if (matched_type && gfc_match_char
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl ---
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 02:57:49PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
>
> --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to urbanjost
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to urbanjost from comment #4)
> User-defined types work and as I read the ISO standard are supported, and
> TYPE(REAL) works; it is only when a parameter is added that it fails;
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
--- Comment #4 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
User-defined types work and as I read the ISO standard are supported, and
TYPE(REAL) works; it is only when a parameter is added that it fails; nvfortran
fails for user-defined type declared
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> Why do you think it should work?
>
> R863 implicit-stmt is IMPLICIT implicit-spec-list
> or IMPLICIT NONE [ ( [
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109223
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=109223
--- Comment #1 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
*** Bug 109226 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
