http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54633
Bug #: 54633
Summary: Issues with MINLOC/MINVAL (MAXLOC/MAXVAL)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: diagnostic, ice-on-valid-code, wrong-code
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: bur...@gcc.gnu.org
Related to 54613, reported by James in the thread "Implicit" use of
assignment(=)"
at
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/5eAz5ns6AG0
Namely:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.fortran/5eAz5ns6AG0/G1uydcaGivkJ
ISSUES:
a) Wrong-code for minval4.f90?
With gfortran 4.3, it gets rejected with:
integer x(minval((/1/)))
1
Error: automatic object 'x' at (1) cannot have the SAVE attribute
interestingly, NAG f95 accepts it unless I use explicitly "save :: x", then it
rejects it with:
Error: minval4.f90, line 7: Static array X cannot have variable bounds
Thus, I am bit lost whether it is valid or not.
b) ICE with minloc/minval (minval2.f90, minloc2.f90):
integer x(sum(minloc((/1/))))
respectively:
integer x(minval((/1/),mask=(/.TRUE./)))
in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at fortran/trans-array.c:5621
That's gcc_assert (!TREE_STATIC (decl)); and decl is the var_decl "x".
The problem is that minloc/minval is not simplified to a constant. Other
compilers do compile-time evaluate this.
(Or they don't? Cf. (a).)
c) minval3.f90: This program compiles in gfortran with -std=f95 but other
compilers reject it with:
MINVAL function is not permitted in an initialization expression
integer, parameter :: m = minval((/1/))
I don't see ad hoc why the other compilers do accept in in (b) but not in (c).
