Re: [Patch, fortran] PR84122 - Incorrect statement sequence in PDT definition

[Jerry D]

On 8/19/25 4:15 AM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote:

Hi All,

I have just noticed that line 9 in the testcase is not what was intended. It should read:

   integer, len, PUBLIC :: idim ! { dg-error "is not allowed" }
and that the second dg-error should be removed.

Paul

On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 10:58, Paul Richard Thomas <paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com <mailto:paul.richard.tho...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    This is a trivial patch that enforces the requirement that PDT parameters do
    not have an access specification and appear before a PRIVATE statement
    within the derived type.

    Regtests on FC42/x86_64. OK for mainline?

    Paul

OK with correction as noted.

Thanks Paul,

Jerry