From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 8C75F3858C5F; Fri,  3 Feb 2023 03:54:20 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8C75F3858C5F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675396460;
	bh=NjSfVgTZyo0hx4wGbFUqKy54ZiWcPZqPPJx9Nljd1/8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Ch+WE0hNlj0teSDqTAmUxDhxoLZgmSrvpR/PblhP+FtBhIVPPMyZuYduN8mCA1X4H
	 uUPTBAP/8/nHofUmdNTK0/kKHrXr0+oa1Oq2faIYCuYLkQDElg8nq+gy5o4mqwInn1
	 STrYzgZTdKVbNcG9OfB2lxHoOSB8lzr6SR8YjBdg=
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
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: <bug-107721-4-ses9fQVzsH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107721-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107721-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107721

--- 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 a=
re
matching the ac-implied-do, however we are not even trying to match expr.

Let's see what we can do about it.=