https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102371
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> --- On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 08:05:02PM +0000, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102371 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|NEW |RESOLVED > Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE > CC| |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org > > --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > It is indeed a duplicate of pr78219. > > Unfortunately the patch provided there fails on the present testcase with: > > pr102371.f90:7:27: > > 7 | forall(integer(long) :: i=1:very_large, j=1:2) > | 1 > Error: Symbol 'i' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type > pr102371.f90:7:43: Ugh, I forgot that one could chain forall iterators like above. The patch is in match_forall_iterator(), which is called multiple times in match_forall_header(). Specifically, lines 2428-2443. m = match_forall_iterator (&new_iter); <<<<< grabs typespec if (m == MATCH_ERROR) goto cleanup; if (m == MATCH_NO) goto syntax; head = tail = new_iter; for (;;) { if (gfc_match_char (',') != MATCH_YES) break; m = match_forall_iterator (&new_iter); <<<<< typespec gone if (m == MATCH_ERROR) goto cleanup; The patch can likely to be right before line 2428 and then after if "(m == MATCH_YES and seen_ts)" fix-up the new_iter typespec.
