https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111781
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #3)
> Unfortunately, it regresses a bit, say pr101026.f for example can be
> simplified to this:
>
> SUBROUTINE PASSB4 (CC,CH)
> DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*)
> END
>
> which gives:
>
> pr101026.f:4:19:
>
> 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*)
> | 1
> Error: Variable ‘ido’ cannot appear in the expression at (1)
> pr101026.f:4:33:
>
> 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*)
> | 1
> Error: Variable ‘ido’ cannot appear in the expression at (1)
> pr101026.f:4:25:
>
> 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*)
> | 1
> Error: Variable ‘l1’ cannot appear in the expression at (1)
> pr101026.f:4:37:
>
> 4 | DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*)
> | 1
> Error: Variable ‘l1’ cannot appear in the expression at (1)
>
>
> What I don't see is what makes the IDO and L1 variables acceptable in a
> specification expression. It seems to me the errors above are valid.
FWIW, NAG and Intel agree with you. With the original pr101026.f I get:
NAG:
Error: pr101026.f, line 4: IDO is not permitted in a specification expression
Error: pr101026.f, line 4: L1 is not permitted in a specification expression
Error: pr101026.f, line 4: IDO is not permitted in a specification expression
Error: pr101026.f, line 4: L1 is not permitted in a specification expression
Intel:
pr101026.f(4): error #6219: This variable, used in a specification expression,
must be a dummy argument, a COMMON block object, or an object accessible
through host or use association. [IDO]
DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*)
-------------------^
pr101026.f(4): error #6219: This variable, used in a specification expression,
must be a dummy argument, a COMMON block object, or an object accessible
through host or use association. [L1]
DIMENSION CC(IDO,4,L1), CH(IDO,L1,*)
-------------------------^
Thus I suggest to fix the testcase by one of the options suggested above.
