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 021533894C1F; Fri,  3 Feb 2023 07:25:38 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 021533894C1F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675409138;
	bh=AojkOaew/1tVeOa5xnpFb18ke/YG41py50LZagGlQOo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=we3sKzeEWhpGcRmXDodyF5I3Xht3E9Qnu20CbdbYo02CzMVPwfGbYzJVugNJGW1zS
	 UaH2lywdOF0SIMxu8TEzbgc5ypUteNZVbVseuas5pDHcihri5LVQ6rqCI3ayfNl7fu
	 lC0bQjlYuBqGQBgAuTeqoE5SHArBWtksUTJQC9nQ=
From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" <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: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 07:25:37 +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: kargl 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-96255-4-l6eActLyz7@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

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

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

--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Scott Boyce from comment #10)
> Just wanted to see if there was any change on this. I just was about to p=
ost
> the same issue (and found this one) for compiling with 11.3.0 and 12.1.0 =
on
> Ubuntu.
>=20
> I used this feature all the time for routines that don't have any availab=
le
> integers and it seems silly to create an extra int at the top of a routine
> just for a loop index.
>=20
> 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.

As the audit trail shows the bug is almost fixed, but someone
needs to do the last little bit to finish it off.  A workaround
would be to use a block construct.  Instead of

     do concurrent (integer :: i=3D1:10)
     ...
     end do

you can do

    block
      integer i
      do concurrent (integer :: i=3D1:10)
      ...
      end do
    end block=