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 630383858C52; Thu,  2 Feb 2023 20:11:49 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 630383858C52
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675368709;
	bh=L3wA1CGOgT0evrIrCsNTsjIMv6Et3mcaMGmfubyVmhM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=GShJzQVXlur3jKpsJ0b/xm+xlUBHdnTD3YaYOgFUN1V9K1Pd9JIQjtirocDWlq9c3
	 j3N58nnbmYCUbhpRV+eBAI/U43QEZrYPqETKS9wNlC1nDNf1L1vuj3JYiYp3FEdDCT
	 fvrFNU1k79dQYq5QCY2QvFGdumj9SWKttuYOZhFY=
From: "Boyce at engineer dot com" <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: Thu, 02 Feb 2023 20:11:47 +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: Boyce at engineer dot com
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-96255-4-LMZ2LIQ8Qz@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

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

Scott Boyce <Boyce at engineer dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |Boyce at engineer dot com

--- Comment #10 from Scott Boyce <Boyce at engineer dot com> ---
Just wanted to see if there was any change on this. I just was about to post
the same issue (and found this one) for compiling with 11.3.0 and 12.1.0 on
Ubuntu.

I used this feature all the time for routines that don't have any available
integers and it seems silly to create an extra int at the top of a routine =
just
for a loop index.

Its also nice for keeping the variable isolated from the other parts of a
routine, when its only purpose is to serve as a loop index.=