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 3CFC53842422; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:25:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3CFC53842422
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1595363135;
 bh=LA1jQ4tkld0w4dgcTmaLlMcFkl53nPIJ5/COVKe1Wlk=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=RH167414juti64hZJ3PubD+xSCRZK1qIqddk/Co/nHIbjmfuNQ578DSvCrtCBAniT
 pkHaQdhbjDS0ZF4RPH2pS/wyHY0CJoNwM+YINmsp5VjKMF6lPpiXtGG3TZa9M6Hhxi
 lCIGZPQDeik5cp/2ZyLkOfx7awsHVXyQuvnVNjpQ=
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/96255] [F2018] Implement optional type spec for index
 in DO CONCURRENT
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:25:35 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-96255-4-JmiKegHcDY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96255-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96255-4@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: <https://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: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 20:25:35 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96255

--- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> -=
--
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 07:44:16PM +0000, jvdelisle at charter dot net wrot=
e:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96255
>=20
> --- Comment #5 from jvdelisle at charter dot net ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > This issue depends on the fix for FORALL.  In gfc_match_do in the concu=
rrent
> > section, one gets to=20
> >=20
> >       m =3D match_forall_header (&head, &mask);
> >=20
> > to match the control portion of the statement.
>=20
> Although we need to support forall, it is interesting that the standards
> committe i going to deprecate it, if they have not done so already. Not
> encouraged to be used for sure. Also they will be adding features to DO
> CONCUURENT which look useful to me.
>=20

do current (JUNK HERE)


forall (JUNK HERE)

The JUNK HERE is parsed by the same code; namely, match_forall_header().

So, if one fixes do current, then one fixes forall.

PS: J3 has an interesting discussion that suggests that do current
is also broken.=