https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125747
--- Comment #4 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #2) > Created attachment 64714 [details] > Preliminary patch > > This patch fixes the ICE and explains a bit about the problem. It does not > address the question on whether to error on the REAL value as an index value. (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #2) > Created attachment 64714 [details] > Preliminary patch > > This patch fixes the ICE and explains a bit about the problem. It does not > address the question on whether to error on the REAL value as an index value. Intel: pr125747.f90(3): error #6325: An integer data type is required in this context. [.3] do concurrent (integer::i=1: .3) -------------------------------^ pr125747.f90(5): error #6325: An integer data type is required in this context. [.3] do concurrent (integer::i=1: .3) -------------------------------^ pr125747.f90(7): error #6325: An integer data type is required in this context. [.3] do concurrent (integer(2)::i=1: .3) ----------------------------------^ compilation aborted for pr125747.f90 (code 1) I think we should not allow this extension for modern DO constructs.
