The following four variants of declarations have been tried in a block
data statement with gfortran 4.1.3 and partly also with 4.3.0:
Var. 1:
character(len=3) :: emname(nmin)=(/'bar','baz'/)
common/nmstr/emname
gives this error:
In file test.f90:16
common/nmstr/emname
1
Error: Previously initialized symbol 'emname' in COMMON block 'nmstr'
at (1)
Var. 2:
common/nmstr/emname
character(len=3) :: emname(nmin)=(/'bar','baz'/)
gives this error:
In file test.f90:19
character(len=3) :: emname(nmin)=(/'bar','baz'/)
1
Error: Initializer not allowed for COMMON variable 'emname' at (1)
In file test.f90:16
common/nmstr/emname
1
Error: Symbol 'emname' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type
Var. 3:
common/nmstr/emname
data emname/'bar','baz'/
character(len=3) :: emname(nmin)
gives this error:
test.f90:1: internal compiler error: in check_data_variable, at
fortran/resolve.c:5865
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Var. 4:
character(len=3) :: emname(nmin) !=(/'bar','baz'/)
common/nmstr/emname
data emname/'bar','baz'/
works.
My question is this: I thought all four variants are compliant with the
standard. Which ones are possibly not, and where does gfortran indeed have a
bug? Var. 1 worked with the Intel compiler; I didn't/can't test the others. The
complete test program is below (comment/uncomment some lines as applicable). My
system is SUSE Linux 10.2.
program foo
implicit none
integer, parameter :: nmin=2
double precision :: rho0(nmin)
common/phasedat/rho0
end program foo
block data thdinit
implicit none
integer, parameter :: nmin=2
!double precision :: rho0(nmin)
common/phasedat/rho0
double precision :: rho0(nmin)
character(len=3) :: emname(nmin) !=(/'bar','baz'/)
common/nmstr/emname
data emname/'bar','baz'/
!character(len=3) :: emname(nmin)=(/'bar','baz'/)
end block data thdinit
--
Summary: Initialization/declaration problems in block data
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: ruedas at dtm dot ciw dot edu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33152
