https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114141
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P4 |P5
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #4)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #3)
> > Yep, agreed. I went back an re-read the section about ASSOCIATE.
> > Not sure how I convinced myself that a constant expression, which
> > reduces to a constant is okay.
> >
> Not sure how you convinced yourself it isn't. ;-)
x => log(cmplx(-1,0))
R1104 association is associate-name => selector
R1105 selector is expr
or variable
R902 variable is designator
or function-reference
R901 designator is object-name
or array-element
or array-section
or coindexed-named-object
or complex-part-designator
or structure-component
or substring
log(cmplx(-1,0)) is certainly not a designator.
log(cmplx(-1,0)) is a function-reference. But this then
leads to
C902 (R902) function-reference shall have a data pointer result.
log(cmplx(-1,0)) violates C902, so this then means that it
must be an expr. One now needs
R915 complex-part-designator is designator % RE
or designator % IM
C922 (R915) The designator shall be of complex type.
which shows that expr%im is invalid; even though log(cmplx(-1,0))
reduces to a constant (i.e., it's not a named constant. This
is likely the error [pun intended] in my ways.).
Sometimes the trees get in the way of seeing the forest.
Arguably, the error message is wrong
gfortran13 -c a.f90
a.f90:6:13:
6 | y = x%im
| 1
Error: Symbol 'x' at (1) has no IMPLICIT type
'x' has the type of COMPLEX.
The version of the code where Jerry wraps log(cmplx(-1,0))
in parentheses. Generates a better error message
$ gfc pr114141.f90
pr114141.f90:6:14:
6 | y = x%im
| 1
Error: The RE or IM part_ref at (1) must be applied to a COMPLEX expression
but this is still wrong in that RE and IM are applied to a designator.
I'll leave the PR open has an enhancement request.
