https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Scott Boyce from comment #10)
> Just wanted to see if there was any change on this. I just was about to post
> the same issue (and found this one) for compiling with 11.3.0 and 12.1.0 on
> Ubuntu.
>
> I used this feature all the time for routines that don't have any available
> integers and it seems silly to create an extra int at the top of a routine
> just for a loop index.
>
> Its also nice for keeping the variable isolated from the other parts of a
> routine, when its only purpose is to serve as a loop index.
As the audit trail shows the bug is almost fixed, but someone
needs to do the last little bit to finish it off. A workaround
would be to use a block construct. Instead of
do concurrent (integer :: i=1:10)
...
end do
you can do
block
integer i
do concurrent (integer :: i=1:10)
...
end do
end block
