------- Comment #8 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-13 22:08 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Reported by Satish at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2010-07/msg00152.html
>
> Is the original code invalid?
>
> C401 (R401) The derived-type-spec shall not specify an abstract
> type (4.5.6).
>
> Satish extends an abstract type.
Why shouldn't one extend abstract types? I think abstract types were
essentially useless if one could not extend them.
type, abstract :: abst
end type abst
type, extends(abst) :: real_type
end type real_type
[...]
class(abst), pointer :: obj
allocate(real_type :: obj)
And in the allocate statement, "real_type" is not an abstract type; using
"allocate(abst :: ...)" would be invalid.
(In reply to comment #5)
> > Talking about (c): The following valid program is also rejected:
> > allocate( real(8) :: r8)
> Hmm. Interesting.
> allocate(real(kind=8) :: r8)
> works.
Hmm, at the moment both works for me ...
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created an attachment (id=21194)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21194&action=view) [edit]
> patch for original problem
Moving the derived-type check up is clearly a good idea, though I wonder
whether the "::" check should be also moved up or remain at the end:
+ else if (m == MATCH_ERROR && gfc_match (" :: ") == MATCH_YES)
+ return MATCH_ERROR;
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44929
