https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96255
--- Comment #13 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to kargls from comment #11) > (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 Let me take a whack at this. (After I whack myself in the head)
