public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.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 03:54:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107721-4-ses9fQVzsH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-107721-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721

--- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Well folks, I like to document my thought process.

From the 2022 draft standard we have:

  R781 ac-value is expr or ac-implied-do

  R782 ac-implied-do is ( ac-value-list , ac-implied-do-control )

In our code within array.cc we are clearly matching for R782.

However, we are not really trying to match expr of R781.

Our basic problem here is we have the following:

  print *, [integer :: ([1.0])] **  2

The ([1.0]) portion is clearly not an ac-implied-do, so what is it?

So is it an expr?

  R1023 expr is [ expr defined-binary-op ] level-5-expr

Looks to me that it is an expr.

  print *, ([1.0]) works quite well.

We have, therefore an expr.

In array.cc we have gfc_match_array_constructor.  As far as I can tell we are
matching the ac-implied-do, however we are not even trying to match expr.

Let's see what we can do about it.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-02-03  3:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-16 19:06 [Bug fortran/107721] New: " anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30  0:26 ` [Bug fortran/107721] " jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30  0:28 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-30  0:29 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-03  2:34 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-03  3:54 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-02-03  7:07 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-04  4:08 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-04 16:45 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-20 23:46 ` jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-107721-4-ses9fQVzsH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).