From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10131 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2008 13:12:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 9933 invoked by uid 48); 8 Apr 2008 13:11:17 -0000 Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080408131117.9932.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "d at domob dot eu" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00615.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #23 from d at domob dot eu 2008-04-08 13:11 ------- (In reply to comment #22) > > However, I'm not quite sure about some things I did [...] > > I think your patch is in a good enough shape to post it to fortran@gcc.gnu.org > and ask there for comments; this ensures that all gfortraners read it (and not > only three Fortraners) and it makes discussing easier than a in a bugreport. Ok, sent it in. > I think it is OK for now, but we need to fix it later. I found a test case > which crashes gfortran (ICE, internal compiler error) for nested character > constructors - even without typespec or bounds checks. See PR 35846. I think > this should be fixed together with the rest. I thought about possible solutions when introducing my global variable, namely either to pass them on the argument list down the stack (which is probably what I would do myself), or to abuse the function stack by saving the old value when setting and resetting it on return; while this seems a bit hackish to me, it means probably less changes... In any case, PR 35846 could be a nice other bug for me once this one is done ;) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997