https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=125747
--- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl <kargl at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #7) > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6) > > (In reply to Harald Anlauf from comment #4) > > > > > > I think we should not allow this extension for modern DO constructs. > > > > > > > I think it should be disallowed in FORALL as well. The error > > message in resolve.cc(gfc_resolve_iterator) is guarded with > > gfc_notify_std (GFC_STD_F95_DEL...). F95 never allowed REAL > > iterators and FORALL was introduced in this standard. > > > > F95, p.114 > > > > R750 forall-triplet-spec is index-name = subscript : subscript [ : stride] > > R617 subscript is scalar-int-expr > > R603 stride is scalar-int-expr > > > > If it breaks code in the wild, so what? The code was never correct. > > +1 > > When I specify -std=f2023, > > do j = 1, 0.3 > end do gfortran had to accept this one due to f66/f77/g77 compatibility. I had a hand in getting that to work. With -std=f2023, one gets the error, without -std=f2023 a warning is issues, and with -std=legacy it's silently accepted. > is already rejected, and > > forall (j = 1:0.3) > end forall > > anyway. So it is actually a regression...
