------- Comment #5 from mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-27 15:40 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> I will investigate more next week-end (unless someone beats me ;-))
>
I'm investigating now.
The first patch was probably wrong.
I'm testing this one at the moment:
Index: parse.c
===================================================================
--- parse.c (r�vision 142242)
+++ parse.c (copie de travail)
@@ -1576,7 +1576,7 @@ typedef struct
{
enum
{ ORDER_START, ORDER_USE, ORDER_IMPORT, ORDER_IMPLICIT_NONE,
- ORDER_IMPLICIT, ORDER_SPEC, ORDER_EXEC
+ ORDER_IMPLICIT, ORDER_SPEC, ORDER_EXEC, ORDER_CONTAINS
}
state;
gfc_statement last_statement;
@@ -1658,6 +1658,10 @@ verify_st_order (st_state *p, gfc_statement st, bo
p->state = ORDER_EXEC;
break;
+ case ST_CONTAINS:
+ p->state = ORDER_CONTAINS;
+ break;
+
default:
gfc_internal_error ("Unexpected %s statement in verify_st_order() at
%C",
gfc_ascii_statement (st));
--
mikael at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mikael at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2008-11-24 22:52:46 |2008-11-27 15:40:17
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38252
