On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 07:56:14AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote: > On 17.02.23 17:27, Steve Kargl wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:13:52PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > > OK for mainline? > > Short version: no. > > Would you mind to write a reasoning beyond only a single word? > > > > subroutine foo(n) > > > integer :: n > > > integer :: array(n*5) > > > integer :: my_len > > > ... > > > my_len = 5 > > > block > > > character(len=my_len, kind=4) :: str > > > > > > my_len = 99 > > > print *, len(str) ! still shows 5 - not 99 > > > end block > > > end > > Are you sure about the above comment? > > Yes - for three reasons: > * On the what-feels-right side: It does not make any sense to print > any other value than 5 given that 'str' has been declared with len = 5. > * On the GCC side, the SAVE_EXPR ensures that the length is evaluated > early and then "saved" to ensure its original value is available > * The quoted text from the standard implies that this is what > should happen.
Your comment in the above code suggest to me that you expected 99. Of course, the print statement should produce 5 and that is what gfortran does. If your patch only effects deferred character types, why are you including a useless code example. -- steve
