From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9BA453858C5E; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 02:34:27 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9BA453858C5E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1675391667; bh=SziYE7pEtx57yK9dS7nlzUUh0rUnOvuXAPT+e9YrwWE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=UXjcnhNiWMV/U10yLIt8CEVlq5JPRnUjmXTNXDhjy+9HHstq6AlHAFciwpKLPG/EA zP787Lp9mn9IGukpcg74ZlfCMQUWUr9I7FBqs8G5u3QnoToaNfIDzS+vKO55e7I3kk 7oQW2PzIg3llkiTve+eb6Zb3oVPWBui+ki35knN0= From: "jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/107721] Lost typespec with constant expressions using array constructors and parentheses Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 02:34:27 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107721 --- Comment #3 from Jerry DeLisle --- I have a copy of the standard so I will answer my own question. This is a comment: In a situation like this: print *, [integer :: ([1.0])] ** 2 My brain wants to say reject it because 1.0 is not an integer. I will check further as I said, but yet another example to me where the standard is counter-intuitive to me. I will be even bold and say the idea of even having a typespec in this form seems, shall I say, not so bright. But, there it is.=