https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82086
--- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I am back on this. If I simply remove the check for repeat count the case given runs fine. The original code doing this check goes way back in history and there is one case in namelist_19.f90 that fails without the check. I need some feedback. Is there ever a case where a repeat count is too large? It seems that it would be interpreted simply as more data available then needed and if this results in a mismatch of types during a read this would just naturally give an error elsewhere. Therefore, the check should just go away. Feedback appreciated.
