public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug fortran/78219] [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the header
       [not found] <bug-78219-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2021-07-21  0:17 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-07-21 22:09 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-21  0:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.c b/gcc/fortran/match.c
index d148de3e3b5..d7668f6a928 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/match.c
+++ b/gcc/fortran/match.c
@@ -2350,6 +2350,34 @@ match_forall_iterator (gfc_forall_iterator **result)
   gfc_forall_iterator *iter;
   locus where;
   match m;
+  gfc_typespec ts;
+  bool seen_ts;
+
+  /* In Fortran 2018, one can do "forall (integer :: i = 1:20)".
+     Try to match an optional "type-spec ::"  */
+  seen_ts = false;
+  gfc_clear_ts (&ts);
+  m = gfc_match_type_spec (&ts);
+  if (m == MATCH_YES)
+    {
+      seen_ts = (gfc_match (" ::") == MATCH_YES);
+
+      if (seen_ts)
+       {
+         if (!gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2018, "FORALL includes a "
+                              "type specification at %C"))
+           return MATCH_ERROR;
+
+         if (ts.type != BT_INTEGER)
+           {
+             gfc_error ("Type-spec at %L shall be INTEGER",
+                        &gfc_current_locus);
+             return MATCH_ERROR;
+           }
+       }
+    }
+  else if (m == MATCH_ERROR)
+    return m;

   where = gfc_current_locus;
   iter = XCNEW (gfc_forall_iterator);
@@ -2358,6 +2386,9 @@ match_forall_iterator (gfc_forall_iterator **result)
   if (m != MATCH_YES)
     goto cleanup;

+  if (seen_ts)
+    iter->var->ts = ts;
+
   if (gfc_match_char ('=') != MATCH_YES
       || iter->var->expr_type != EXPR_VARIABLE)
     {

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/78219] [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the header
       [not found] <bug-78219-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2021-07-21  0:17 ` [Bug fortran/78219] [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the header kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-07-21 22:09 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-09-21 20:01 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-21 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219

--- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #7)
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.c b/gcc/fortran/match.c
> index d148de3e3b5..d7668f6a928 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/match.c
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/match.c
> @@ -2350,6 +2350,34 @@ match_forall_iterator (gfc_forall_iterator **result)
>    gfc_forall_iterator *iter;
>    locus where;
>    match m;
> +  gfc_typespec ts;
> +  bool seen_ts;
> +
> +  /* In Fortran 2018, one can do "forall (integer :: i = 1:20)".

s/2018/2008

> +     Try to match an optional "type-spec ::"  */
> +  seen_ts = false;
> +  gfc_clear_ts (&ts);
> +  m = gfc_match_type_spec (&ts);
> +  if (m == MATCH_YES)
> +    {
> +      seen_ts = (gfc_match (" ::") == MATCH_YES);
> +
> +      if (seen_ts)
> +	{
> +	  if (!gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F2018, "FORALL includes a "

s/2018/2008

> +			       "type specification at %C"))
> +	    return MATCH_ERROR;
> +
> +	  if (ts.type != BT_INTEGER)
> +	    {
> +	      gfc_error ("Type-spec at %L shall be INTEGER",
> +			 &gfc_current_locus);
> +	      return MATCH_ERROR;
> +	    }
> +	}
> +    }
> +  else if (m == MATCH_ERROR)
> +    return m;
>  
>    where = gfc_current_locus;
>    iter = XCNEW (gfc_forall_iterator);
> @@ -2358,6 +2386,9 @@ match_forall_iterator (gfc_forall_iterator **result)
>    if (m != MATCH_YES)
>      goto cleanup;
>  
> +  if (seen_ts)
> +    iter->var->ts = ts;
> +
>    if (gfc_match_char ('=') != MATCH_YES
>        || iter->var->expr_type != EXPR_VARIABLE)
>      {

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/78219] [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the header
       [not found] <bug-78219-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2021-07-21  0:17 ` [Bug fortran/78219] [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the header kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-07-21 22:09 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-21 20:01 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-09-21 20:05 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-21 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219

anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #7)
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.c b/gcc/fortran/match.c

The patch unfortunately seems incomplete.  It fails when using IMPLICIT NONE
or -fimplicit-none with:

pr78219.f90:3:30:

    3 |   forall (integer(kind=4) :: i = 1:10)
      |                              1
Error: Symbol 'i' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type

and similarly for pr102371.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/78219] [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the header
       [not found] <bug-78219-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2021-09-21 20:01 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-09-21 20:05 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
  2021-11-01 21:40 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-04-04 19:57 ` longb at cray dot com
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-09-21 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219

anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |longb at cray dot com

--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
*** Bug 102371 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/78219] [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the header
       [not found] <bug-78219-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2021-09-21 20:05 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-11-01 21:40 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
  2024-04-04 19:57 ` longb at cray dot com
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-11-01 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219

--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #7)
> > diff --git a/gcc/fortran/match.c b/gcc/fortran/match.c
> 
> The patch unfortunately seems incomplete.  It fails when using IMPLICIT NONE
> or -fimplicit-none with:
> 
> pr78219.f90:3:30:
> 
>     3 |   forall (integer(kind=4) :: i = 1:10)
>       |                              1
> Error: Symbol 'i' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type
> 
> and similarly for pr102371.

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/2021-September/757723.html

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* [Bug fortran/78219] [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the header
       [not found] <bug-78219-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2021-11-01 21:40 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-04-04 19:57 ` longb at cray dot com
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: longb at cray dot com @ 2024-04-04 19:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78219

--- Comment #12 from Bill Long <longb at cray dot com> ---
Has this been fixed in a more recent version of gfortran?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-04 19:57 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <bug-78219-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2021-07-21  0:17 ` [Bug fortran/78219] [F08] specifying the kind of a FORALL index in the header kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-21 22:09 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-21 20:01 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-09-21 20:05 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-01 21:40 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-04-04 19:57 ` longb at cray dot com

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).