[Bug fortran/27997] New: Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor, i.e. (/ real :: 1., 2., 3. /)

[Bug fortran/27997] New: Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor, i.e. (/ real :: 1., 2., 3. /)

[tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 958 bytes --]

See Fortran 2003 standard, section 4.8.
Example (F2003, "Note 4.70"):
  (/ CHARACTER(LEN=7) :: ’Takata’, ’Tanaka’, ’Hayashi’ /)

Currently, this gives the error:
  a =  (/ character(len=7) :: 'Takata', 'Tanaka', 'Hayashi' /)
                         1
Error: Syntax error in array constructor at (1)

---------------------
program test
  character(15) :: a(3)
  a =  (/ character(len=7) :: 'Takata', 'Tanaka', 'Hayashi' /)
  print '(a)',a
end program test
---------------------


-- 
           Summary: Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor,
                    i.e. (/ real :: 1., 2., 3. /)
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-09-28 08:02 -------
Confirmed, and marked as blocking the F2003 meta-PR.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |20585
              nThis|                            |
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2006-09-28 08:02:35
               date|                            |
            Summary|Fortran 2003: Support type- |Fortran 2003: Support type-
                   |spec for array constructor, |spec for array constructor
                   |i.e. (/ real :: 1., 2., 3.  |
                   |/)                          |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-08 18:59 -------
Created an attachment (id=14512)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14512&action=view)
Patch to add this feature

This patch does the job. I'll wait until next stage 1 to submit it.


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 506 bytes --]



------- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-14 16:24 -------
As noted by Tobias Schlüter, the following valid program is rejected:

INTEGER = 1
PRINT *, (/ INTEGER /)
END

One solution is to check for the "::" and if it does not exists, set "seen_ts =
0" and "gfc_current_locus = where".
One also has to move the gfc_notify_std down (e.g. after "done:") and check
then whether seen_ts is set. I think that's what I would do.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-12-14 17:19 -------
By the way, your patch does not work, unless I messed up locally. For the
example of comment 0 I get "Hayash" and not "Hayashi":

  static character(kind=1)[1:6] * A.1[3]= {&"Takata"[1]{ ...

Test case:

! { dg-do run }
!
! PR fortran/27997
!
! Support array constructors with typespec.
!
program test
  implicit none
  character(15) :: a(3)
  a =  (/ character(len=7) :: 'Takata', 'Tanaka', 'Hayashi' /)
  if ( len([ character(len=7) :: ]) /= 7) call abort()
  if ( size([ integer :: ]) /= 0) call abort()
  if(     a(1) /= 'Takata'  .or. a(1)(7:7)   /= achar(32) &
                            .or. a(1)(15:15) /= achar(32) &
     .or. a(2) /= 'Tanaka'  .or. a(2)(7:7)   /= achar(32) &
                            .or. a(2)(15:15) /= achar(32) &
     .or. a(3) /= 'Hayashi' .or. a(3)(8:8)   /= achar(32))&
                            .or. a(1)(15:15) /= achar(32))&
   call abort()
end program test


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #5 from d at domob dot eu  2008-03-24 20:01 -------
Created an attachment (id=15370)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15370&action=view)
Partly fixed patch

This patch fixes the problem described above with respect to correct detection
of seen_ts and adds some tests (hope this is ok); the string conversion problem
is still failing.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #6 from d at domob dot eu  2008-03-25 12:44 -------
After looking at the assembly dump, the problem with the strings seems to be
that the literals are stored packed to each other in the data section and the
array constructor simply lists the pointers to them and sets the length value
to 7; thus, the shorter strings get the following character (that happens to be
the first one of the next string) appended to them.

Could we resolve this problem by keeping track for each string literal in which
content it will accessed and padding them with spaces to the longest used
length when dumping to the data section?  Possibly when gfc_convert_expr is
called on a string literal?

BTW, is this a problem that affects other things also, for instance, user
defined records?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-25 12:51 -------
(In reply to comment #6)

This string length change (and padding) needs to happen way earlier than that.
We should make it happen during the matching, when we convert the constructor
objects into the array constructor type.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-25 12:58 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Possibly when gfc_convert_expr is called on a string literal?

I'm not sure but I think you'd see the same issue on a character variable that
is not a constant. gfc_convert_expr() doesn't handle conversion of characters
into different strings lengths, and it probably shouldn't be extended to do
that (it's a special case that is only used in type-spec array constructors).
So we probably need to add some code to handle that instead of calling
gfc_convert_expr() when we have character variables. (Maybe a function to do
just that already exists in expr.c.)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-25 16:04 -------
Another test case, causes an ICE with another compiler, which supports the
first test case; I have not tested it with the current patch.

program test
  character(15) :: a(3)
  character(10), volatile :: b(3)
  b(1) = 'Takata'
  b(2) = 'Tanaka'
  b(3) = 'Hayashi'
  a =  (/ character(len=7) :: trim(b(1)), trim(b(2)), trim(b(3)) /)
  print '(a)',a
  a =  (/ character(len=2) :: trim(b(1)), trim(b(2)), trim(b(3)) /)
  print '(a)',a
  a =  (/ character(len=8) :: trim(b(1)), trim(b(2)), trim(b(3)) /)
  print '(a)',a
end program test


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #10 from d at domob dot eu  2008-03-25 16:40 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> 
> This string length change (and padding) needs to happen way earlier than that.
> We should make it happen during the matching, when we convert the constructor
> objects into the array constructor type.

Hm, what about adding a case to gfc_resolve_character_array_constructor
handling arrays *with* given length by padding all elements that are shorter? 
Would this work?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-25 16:54 -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> Hm, what about adding a case to gfc_resolve_character_array_constructor
> handling arrays *with* given length by padding all elements that are shorter? 
> Would this work?

Sounds like the right place. Care should be taken because lengths are not
required to be constants, like in the following:

  call foo(8, "short")
  call foo(2, "lenghty")
contains
  subroutine foo(n,s)
    character(len=*) s
    integer n
    print *, [ character(len=n) :: 'test', s ]
  end subroutine
end

(I haven't yet found a compiler that does compile this and run it fine.)


-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
                   |org                         |dot org
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #12 from d at domob dot eu  2008-03-25 17:10 -------
(In reply to comment #11)
> Sounds like the right place. Care should be taken because lengths are not
> required to be constants, like in the following:
> 
>   call foo(8, "short")
>   call foo(2, "lenghty")
> contains
>   subroutine foo(n,s)
>     character(len=*) s
>     integer n
>     print *, [ character(len=n) :: 'test', s ]
>   end subroutine
> end

Well, I'm not sure if the patch I've got in mind would handle this...  I'm
thinking of padding string literals shorter than the array's length at compile
time when this length is constant.

For non-constant lengths I suppose a runtime call would be needed to pad
correctly?  Is this important or should I first make constant lengths work?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #13 from d at domob dot eu  2008-03-25 19:53 -------
Created an attachment (id=15374)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15374&action=view)
Patch padding for constant character lengths

This patch implements padding if the character length of the array is constant
(it was much easier than I thought, and much less complicated than the solution
I tried before--just know where...).  It handles the original failure and also
the test from comment #9 (if I understood correctly what the output should be),
but it fails for the one in comment #11 with dynamic length.

I did also add those two cases to the test suite, with the latter failing. 
This patch also provokes a failure of char_component_initializer_1.f90 of
pr31487.  Any hints why?


-- 

d at domob dot eu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #15370|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #14 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-03-28 10:32 -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Created an attachment (id=15374)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15374&action=view) [edit]
> Patch padding for constant character lengths

I assume that you have not bootstrapped GCC/gfortran since with that patch it
fails when compiling libgfortran/intrinsics/selected_real_kind.f90.

Reduced test case:

  type :: real_info
    integer :: kind
  end type real_info
  type (real_info) :: real_infos(1) = (/ real_info (4) /)
end


  type (real_info) :: real_infos(1) = (/ real_info (4) /)
                                            1
Error: Syntax error in array constructor at (1)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #15 from d at domob dot eu  2008-04-01 08:12 -------
The bootstrap problem is fixed, but with dynamic lengths I'm still struggling
;)
However, the following program without typespec in the array constructor also
fails (according to my judging what it should do) both with 4.3 and my
(patched) SVN version; I don't have access to an unpatched one:

PROGRAM test
  CALL foo (8, "short")
CONTAINS
  SUBROUTINE foo (n, s)
    INTEGER :: n
    CHARACTER(len=*) :: s
    CHARACTER(len=n) :: arr(2)
    arr = (/ 'test', s /)
    WRITE (*,*) arr(1)
    WRITE (*,*) arr(2)
    WRITE (*,*) s
    WRITE (*,*)
  END SUBROUTINE foo
END PROGRAM test

Is this anouther bug or do I misinterpret something?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #16 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-01 10:17 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> However, the following program without typespec in the array constructor also
> fails (according to my judging what it should do)

Different compilers give different output for this one, but this is no problem
as the program is invalid. "gfortran -fbounds-check" shows the problem:

Fortran runtime error: Different CHARACTER lengths (4/5) in array constructor

That is the reason why (/ typespec :: element-list /)  is needed. How long
should be each element for  (/ "a", "bb", "ccc" /) ? One, two, three or ...
characters? One could argue that is should match the longest, but this is an
arbitrary choice and makes the run-time array construction slower. Actually,
with the Intel compiler, 's, "test"' and '"test", s' produce different results
;-)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #17 from d at domob dot eu  2008-04-01 12:53 -------
I see, thanks!  I thought it would be the longest length (i.e., clipped by the
array definition assigned to).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #18 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-01 14:18 -------
> I see, thanks!  I thought it would be the longest length (i.e., clipped by the
> array definition assigned to).

For completeness: See "4.7 Construction of array values" in the Fortran 2003
standard (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranStandards). There one finds:

"C494 (R466) If type-spec is omitted, each ac-value expression in the
array-constructor shall have the same type and kind type parameters."

This does not apply yet as we have everywhere default-kind character variables.
But it continues a few lines later as follows (note the "same length type
parameter"):

"If type-spec is omitted, each ac-value expression in the array constructor
shall have the same length type parameters; in this case, the type and type
parameters of the array constructor are those of the ac-value expressions.

"If type-spec appears, it specifies the type and type parameters of the array
constructor. Each ac-value expression in the array-constructor shall be
compatible with intrinsic assignment to a variable of this type and type
parameters.[...]"


In general, it is quite helpful to look at the specification in the Fortran
standard, when one implements something. (Although it takes some time to get
somewhat used to the standard; still I find it quite readable.) A Fortran
textbook or Reid's F2003 intro
(ftp://ftp.nag.co.uk/sc22wg5/N1601-N1650/N1648.pdf) are helpful, but at the end
the standard is the only official and definite reference. If you need
interpretation help or help searching, write me an email (or try the IRC, link
see http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran). It if gets too difficult, one ends up
asking at comp.lang.fortran or even requesting an official interpretation (cf.
PR 34805).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #19 from d at domob dot eu  2008-04-04 20:27 -------
Created an attachment (id=15429)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15429&action=view)
Implements dynamic string length

Finally, I managed to get dynamic string length working; however, this was more
an experimentation thing for some parts.  For instance, the generation of the
tree-expression in gfc_trans_array_constructor was pure guessing and getting
lucky, so I fear it is not quite done the right way; however, so far it works
and I hope it is nearly correct now.

This patch makes all my tests for constructor with typespec work, but it
introduces two regression failures I'll still have to look at.  And finally, I
fear the style is yet to become perfect ;)


-- 

d at domob dot eu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #15374|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #20 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-04 22:43 -------
> Implements dynamic string length
Great!

But you also need the handle -fbounds-check. Compile the test case of comment
11 with -fbounds-check. The result is:

Fortran runtime error: Different CHARACTER lengths (4/5) in array constructor

Without type spec the error is correct, however, with the type spec the
elements are allowed to have different lengths.

For the test cases: How about adding one test case for -std=f95, which rejects
this Fortran 2003 feature?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #21 from d at domob dot eu  2008-04-06 15:28 -------
Created an attachment (id=15435)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15435&action=view)
Handles bounds checking and fixes regressions.

This patch handles the bounds checking correctly, adds a test case if -std=f95
rejects array constructors with typespec, and fixes all regression failures,
i.e., this makes the testsuite pass cleanly including all my own new test
cases.

However, I'm not quite sure about some things I did and if this is really the
right way (although it seems to work), marked them mostly with XXX:.  I'd be
glad if someone could have a look at the patch and those places especially to
see if all is ok or give comments how it should be done.

And last but not least I'm not sure if I hit the right code style, I mostly
doubt I did correctly insert the tab characters where they belong (as I'm used
to indent with spaces only) ;)


-- 

d at domob dot eu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Attachment #15429|0                           |1
        is obsolete|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #22 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-06 16:22 -------
> Created an attachment (id=15435)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15435&action=view) [edit]
> Handles bounds checking and fixes regressions.

Great.

> 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.

I think one could also submit it for review, which means that you need to write
a changelog and should CC the email to gcc-patches@.  (The reason is that then
also developers of the middle end can glance at it and give comments.)

+/* XXX: Ok as global or does bounds-checking need to be reentrant for things
+   like nested constructors?  */

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.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- 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

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[d at domob dot eu]

------- Comment #24 from d at domob dot eu  2008-04-11 20:26 -------
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)
> > 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.

Any news from the patch?  Or is it usual to take some time to get responses?
Hope it didn't get lost (or the responses in the gcc-patches volume on my
machine...)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #25 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-16 19:50 -------
Subject: Bug 27997

Author: burnus
Date: Fri May 16 19:50:04 2008
New Revision: 135439

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135439
Log:
2008-04-16  Daniel Kraft  <d@domob.eu>

        PR fortran/27997
        * gfortran.h:  Added field "length_from_typespec" to gfc_charlength.
        * aray.c (gfc_match_array_constructor):  Added code to parse
        * typespec.
        (check_element_type, check_constructor_type,
gfc_check_constructor_type):
        Extended to support explicit typespec on constructor.
        (gfc_resolve_character_array_constructor):  Pad strings correctly for
        explicit, constant character length.
        * trans-array.c:  New static global variable
        * "typespec_chararray_ctor"
        (gfc_trans_array_constructor):  New code to support explicit but
dynamic
        character lengths.

2008-04-16  Daniel Kraft  <d@domob.eu>

        PR fortran/27997
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_1.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_2.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_3.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_4.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_5.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_6.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_7.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_8.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_9.f:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_10.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_11.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_12.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_13.f90:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_14.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_15.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_16.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_17.f03:  New test
        * gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_18.f03:  New test


Added:
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_1.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_10.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_11.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_12.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_13.f90
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_14.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_15.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_16.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_17.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_18.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_2.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_3.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_4.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_5.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_6.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_7.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_8.f03
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/array_constructor_type_9.f
Modified:
    trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/fortran/array.c
    trunk/gcc/fortran/gfortran.h
    trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997

[Bug fortran/27997] Fortran 2003: Support type-spec for array constructor

[burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #26 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-05-16 19:54 -------
FIXED on the trunk (4.4.0)


-- 

burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27997