https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4)
>
> print *, ([1.0]) works quite well.
>
> We have, therefore an expr.
>
> In array.cc we have gfc_match_array_constructor. As far as I can tell we
> are matching the ac-implied-do, however we are not even trying to match expr.
>
> Let's see what we can do about it.
>
Yes, it's an expr. The matching happens in gfc_match_array_constructor()
when you get to lines 1311ff
for (;;)
{
m = match_array_cons_element (&head);
if (m == MATCH_ERROR)
goto cleanup;
if (m == MATCH_NO)
goto syntax;
if (gfc_match_char (',') == MATCH_NO)
break;
}
If you deep dive into match_array_cons_element(), you see
m = match_array_list (result);
if (m != MATCH_NO)
return m;
m = gfc_match_expr (&expr);
if (m != MATCH_YES)
return m;
There's your expression mapping. The problem is that for
[integer :: ([1.0])] ** 2, simplification of the expression
([1.0]) returns ([1.0]) and expr_type of EXPR_OP.
So, when we walk the array constructor in lines 1368ff
if (gfc_numeric_ts (&ts))
{
m = walk_array_constructor (&ts, head);
if (m == MATCH_ERROR)
return m;
}
the walker cannot apply a type conversion.
My take is that simplification of ([1.0]) needs to reduce
this to [1.0], which then allows the code to compile. I
had a patch that did this, but it failed with (([1.0])).
I modified the patch to accept (([1.0])), and it of course
failed with ((([1.0]))).
