https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99349
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4) > The function is match_data_constant(), so we're looking for a > constant. My patch simply removes the type checking as it is > unimportant here, and a type mismatch between a data-object and > data-value is checked elsewhere. I suspect my original code was > being too cautious with type checks. There's nothing wrong with being cautious. Currently, the only valid parameter inquiries are %kind, %len, %re, %im. So checking for integer or real makes sense. Maybe, at some point in the future, gfc_match_rvalue() may be more strict or differ in some way and handle the invalid decl in a different way. That's why I think that keeping the type check may have some merit, even if it is not clear which one. > If your patch leads to a better error message(s), then by all > means use your patch. It's just a different error message (a syntax error instead of another one that does not give better insight...).
