------- Comment #9 from Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de
2005-11-07 23:43 -------
Subject: Re: Unclassifiable statement on implicitly typed
character substring
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-07 23:29
> -------
> We get to "check_substring:" in match_varspec:
>
> PROGRAM P
> IMPLICIT CHARACTER*8 (Y)
> YLOCAL='A'
> YBTABLE=YLOCAL(1:2)
> END
>
> check_substring:
> if (primary->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER)
> {
> switch (match_substring (primary->ts.cl, equiv_flag, &substring))
> {
> case MATCH_YES:
> if (tail == NULL)
> primary->ref = substring;
>
> But at this point, while we have matched YLOCAL in the second assignment, we
> still haven't picked up a type for it. So primary->ts.type == BT_UNKNOWN and
> we never even try to match the substring.
>
> I'm not sure if YLOCAL should have just picked up a type earlier. Thoughts,
> Tobi?
It should have picked up a type in the first assignment. Why it doesn't, I
don't know. Apparently, the failure is conditional on the facts that A) there
already exists a symbol and B) this symbol doesn't have a type at that point.
I'll look into this in more depth tomorrow. I remember that last time I
looked into these issues (back before Jakub fixed PR18833), I noticed that the
matching of primaries had been completely reworked in g95, and I can't think
of any other bug relating to that than this one, so this bug might well turn
out to be a snake pit.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24643
