Le 13/04/2013 17:44, Mikael Morin a écrit :
> Indeed, that's invalid:
>
And then, the call to gfc_match_varspec shouldn't be there in the first
place. I'll test the following later.
Index: primary.c
===================================================================
--- primary.c (révision 197949)
+++ primary.c (copie de travail)
@@ -1954,11 +1954,10 @@ gfc_match_varspec (gfc_expr *primary, int equiv_fl
gcc_assert (!tail || !tail->next);
- if (!(primary->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE
- || (primary->expr_type == EXPR_STRUCTURE
- && primary->symtree && primary->symtree->n.sym
- && primary->symtree->n.sym->attr.flavor)))
- return MATCH_ERROR;
+ gcc_assert (primary->expr_type == EXPR_VARIABLE
+ || (primary->expr_type == EXPR_STRUCTURE
+ && primary->symtree && primary->symtree->n.sym
+ && primary->symtree->n.sym->attr.flavor));
if (tbp->n.tb->is_generic)
tbp_sym = NULL;
@@ -3102,18 +3101,8 @@ gfc_match_rvalue (gfc_expr **result)
gfc_error ("Missing argument list in function '%s' at %C", sym->name);
if (m != MATCH_YES)
- {
- m = MATCH_ERROR;
- break;
- }
+ m = MATCH_ERROR;
- /* If our new function returns a character, array or structure
- type, it might have subsequent references. */
-
- m = gfc_match_varspec (e, 0, false, true);
- if (m == MATCH_NO)
- m = MATCH_YES;
-
break;
generic_function:
