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 33678385843E; Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:21:27 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 33678385843E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1682648487;
	bh=k1hGUcdIexErPOQlvzAV14ogHORAecmg/nVG+OxlioM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=XZUmnVZvZMlzRIpHNAvtd8b+I8VfIMMncQndJShklnkVoDD87qEpivbnrjfeA54Vk
	 zLhALcd40XmPew7Ijp+BwCh4CTeL3UF6QOegAk7MIkAT8NiSBJoBFIXdbNWqEZIQ8B
	 KL82Vk02dMomgg2kEG0algFloGrZKMDzGgbndPyc=
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/109641] Gfortran fails to overload intrinsic operator
 (*) if operands are complex. It works with real ones.
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 02:21:26 +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: 10.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid, rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109641-4-tzI7YhbmCI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109641-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109641-4@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=3D109641

--- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> -=
--
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 01:37:48AM +0000, adelson.oliveira at gmail dot com
wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109641
>=20
> --- Comment #8 from Adelson Oliveira <adelson.oliveira at gmail dot com> =
---
> Then I should have defined the operations with double precision as well?
>=20

I have tested, but mostly yes.  If I do a -fdump-parse-tree
of your code, I see

  code:
  ASSIGN teste:v(FULL) 1.00000000e0
  ASSIGN teste:m(FULL) (complex 1.00000000e0 1.00000000e0)
  ASSIGN teste:r(FULL) (* __convert_r4_c4[[((teste:v(FULL)))]] teste:m(FULL=
))

If you have mixed REAL and DOUBLE PRECISION, you'll likely
have an implicit __convert_r4_r8.=