https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to kargl from comment #5) > (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4) > > > (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > > > Yep, agreed. I went back an re-read the section about ASSOCIATE. > > > Not sure how I convinced myself that a constant expression, which > > > reduces to a constant is okay. > > > > > Not sure how you convinced yourself it isn't. ;-) > > x => log(cmplx(-1,0)) > > R1104 association is associate-name => selector > > R1105 selector is expr > or variable > > R902 variable is designator > or function-reference > > R901 designator is object-name > or array-element > or array-section > or coindexed-named-object > or complex-part-designator > or structure-component > or substring > > log(cmplx(-1,0)) is certainly not a designator. > > log(cmplx(-1,0)) is a function-reference. But this then > leads to > > C902 (R902) function-reference shall have a data pointer result. > > > log(cmplx(-1,0)) violates C902, so this then means that it > must be an expr. Agreed. > One now needs > > > R915 complex-part-designator is designator % RE > or designator % IM > > C922 (R915) The designator shall be of complex type. > > which shows that expr%im is invalid; even though log(cmplx(-1,0)) > reduces to a constant (i.e., it's not a named constant. This > is likely the error [pun intended] in my ways.). > This is about x%im, which is a different expression from log(cmplx(-1, 0)). x is an associate-name, and thus (I think) an object-name, and a valid designator, even if it's associated selector isn't.
