http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41370
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #2 from dfranke at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-05 00:31 ---
I'd vote for valid (moving the definition of the return type into the
specification part already is accepted).
F95, 5.1 Type declaration statements
The speci#64257;cation-expr (7.1.6.2) of a char-len-param-value
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-16 07:41 ---
Hmm, I think it might be invalid. The follwing program is rejected as well and
avoids one potential problem. Xia had some other examples which should also be
checked after PR 41369 and - if valid - this PR is fixed.