http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55501
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-28 12:22:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> The first two are runtime checks, which are basically identical. Here is a
> reduced test case for these:
>
> implicit none
> integer :: i(-1:1) = 0
>
> print *, lbound(merge(i,i,.true.))
> print *, ubound(merge(i,i,.true.))
>
> end
>
> Without the patch, this prints:
> 1
> 3
> And with the patch:
> -1
> 1
>
> The output with the patch does look more reasonable to me. Or is there any
> reason why the standard would demand the MERGE expression to have bounds of
> 1:3
> instead of -1:1 ?
At least all of ifort, sunf95 and g95 agree with the first variant (1:3).
[Btw, the bound_{2,7} test cases come from PR 29391.]
