https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108651
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Scott Boyce from comment #3)
> No its not correct because the
Yes, it is the correct behavior. Please see 18-007r1.pdf, p.57.
7.4.3.1 Integer type
...
Any integer value can be represented as a signed-int-literal-constant.
...
The optional kind type parameter following digit-string
specifies the kind type parameter of the integer constant;
if it does not appear, the constant is default integer.
8258803693257250632 has default integer kind when it is parsed.
8258803693257250632_int64 has the integer type of integer(int64).
Now check Sec. 7.8 "Construction of array values".
R773 ac-value is expr
or ac-implied-do
8258803693257250632 is an expr.
C7111 (R770) If type-spec specifies an intrinsic type, each
ac-value expression in the array-constructor shall be of
an intrinsic type that is in type conformance with a
variable of type type-spec as specified in Table 10.8.
8258803693257250632 meets the requirements of type conformance.
18-007r1.pdf, p. 89. If type-spec appears, it specifies the
declared type and type parameters of the array constructor.
Each ac-value expression in the array-constructor shall be
compatible with intrinsic assignment to a variable of this type
and type parameters. Each value is converted to the type and
type parameters of the array-constructor in accordance
with the rules of intrinsic assignment (10.2.1.3).
Now, read that last sentence again, and then go read 10.2.1.3.
8258803693257250632 is treated as the right-hand-side of an
intrinsic assignment such as
integer(int64) x
x = 8258803693257250632
This won't work because mathematically 8258803693257250632
exceeds huge(1).
You have shown the correct way to do the array constructor,
and in that case the type-spec within the constructor is
redundant.
