http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2013-01-24
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 13:50:34 UTC ---
Here is a patch to accept the test case in comment 0:
Index: gcc/fortran/match.c
===================================================================
--- gcc/fortran/match.c (revision 195411)
+++ gcc/fortran/match.c (working copy)
@@ -1830,12 +1830,14 @@ gfc_match_associate (void)
gfc_association_list* a;
/* Match the next association. */
+ gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 1;
if (gfc_match (" %n => %e", newAssoc->name, &newAssoc->target)
!= MATCH_YES)
{
gfc_error ("Expected association at %C");
goto assocListError;
}
+ gfc_matching_procptr_assignment = 0;
newAssoc->where = gfc_current_locus;
/* Check that the current name is not yet in the list. */
I feels a bit like a hack and I'm not sure if it might break something (will
regtest now).
Also, I haven't checked yet if anything more is needed for a full runtime test,
where the associate symbol is actually used in some way.
