> In the test case, could you also add a "PR fortran/36534" to the
> as comment?
Sure.
> Additionally, I wonder whether instead of the name-based checking
> + && (sym->name[0] != '_' || sym->name[1] != '_'))
> it wouldn't be cleaner to check
> && sym->attr.intrinsic
> (If you chan
FX wrote:
> Now, here's a tiny patch to silence the related warning in PR36534.
> I also remove the condition on gfc_current_form != FORM_FIXED, as diagnostics
> should be emitted based on language/pedantic options, not source form.
Looks good to me. However:
In the test case, could you also add
It looks like the committee has reversed his opinion on this since the 2008
interp. There is wording in both F2003 and F2008 standards that supports this
view, so I’ve closed the PR.
Now, here’s a tiny patch to silence the related warning in PR36534. I also
remove the condition on gfc_current_f
Hi FX,
FX wrote:
When I added support for nondefault initial character kinds, I thought they
could be assigned freely to each other. It turns out it’s not the case:
Am am vaguely remembering that some interpretation request/change now
allows this.
And if I look at the current Fortran 2015
