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 529A2385BF83; Wed,  1 Apr 2020 07:51:42 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 529A2385BF83
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1585727502;
 bh=EhsVzQI2biHD7NWaQD4UsLrzlwFT92OeNcn5RDaGBfA=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=nQVV84OUDjh98ZxmkgEpah5q44ACLd9bBP0fYprrtUThI6wEpsi296mpOzn0DgSau
 XGLQYFeIv5dwQfqanYF/6CAY4KSbkHZISAeVnntmhzYNXBGaa8bPwzNM1rA6ZRCYN4
 S2dIor5hngm1c1J+yZk0qDsFSbRPK+zFuPZNdv5Q=
From: "markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/94397] [10 Regression] the compiler consider "type is(
 real(kind(1.)) )" as a syntax error since r10-7369-gc38daa7976886a59
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 07:51:42 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-94397-4-8MlybV3Tiw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94397-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94397-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2020 07:51:42 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94397

--- Comment #6 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> (In reply to markeggleston from comment #4)
> > The compilation error reported is due this change in PR93484:
> >=20
> > --- a/gcc/fortran/match.c
> > +++ b/gcc/fortran/match.c
> > @@ -2222,9 +2222,9 @@ gfc_match_type_spec (gfc_typespec *ts)
> >=20=20
> >  found:
> >=20=20
> > -      m =3D gfc_match_init_expr (&e);
> > +      m =3D gfc_match_expr (&e);
> >=20
> > Changing it back causes test cases ISO_Fortran_binding_11.f90 and
> > pr78033.f90 to fail.
> >=20
> > If "kind=3D" is found gfc_match_init_expr (&e) should be used and when =
it is
> > not gfc_match_expr (&e).
> >=20
> > I'm checking a suitable test case and will have a patch ready soon.
>=20
> The patch in comment #3 likely is the correct patch.  When in the
> specification part of a scoping unit, the above change is needed to
> distinguish REAL(kind(1.)) from REAL(1.1, kind(1.)).  In the former,
> we have a type and kind(1.) must be an initialization expression
> (see comment 3 or 4 lines down).  In the latter case, we have the
> intrinsic subprogram, and simply return MATCH_NO or MATCH_ERROR.
>=20
> --=20
> steve

Thanks Steve.  Should've tried your patch earlier, it is much simpler than =
mine
and I've verified that it works. There was a nagging feeling that my soluti=
on
was incomplete. I'm happy to add test cases to your patch and send it upstr=
eam
for approval.=