Hi Harald,
we could do something like this:
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/primary.cc b/gcc/fortran/primary.cc
index d73d5eaed84..5000906f5f2 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/primary.cc
+++ b/gcc/fortran/primary.cc
@@ -2823,6 +2823,16 @@ check_substring:
if (substring)
primary->ts.u.cl = NULL;
+ if (gfc_peek_ascii_char () == '(')
+ {
+ gfc_array_ref arr_ref;
+ gfc_array_spec *as
+ = sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS ? CLASS_DATA (sym)->as : sym->as;
+ gfc_match_array_ref (&arr_ref, as, 0, 0);
+
+ gfc_error_now ("Unexpected array/substring ref at %C");
+ return MATCH_ERROR;
+ }
break;
case MATCH_NO:
It would at least give a better hint. Attached is the patch that adds this to
the previous one.
Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / Fedora 39. Is this ok?
Regards and thanks for the review,
Andre
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 23:31:11 +0200
Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Andre,
>
> Am 01.10.24 um 09:43 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > this rather old PR reported a parsing bug, when a coarray'ed character
> > substring ref is to be parsed, aka CHARACTER(:) :: str[:] ... str(2:5). In
> > this case the parser confused the substring ref with an array-ref, because
> > an array_spec was present. This patch fixes this by requesting only coarray
> > parsing from gfc_match_array_ref when no regular dimension is present. The
> > patch is not involved when an array of coarray'ed strings is parsed (that
> > worked beforehand).
>
> while the patch addresses the issue mentioned in the PR,
>
> > I had to fix the dg-error clauses in the testcase pr102532 because now the
> > error of having to many refs is detected by the parsing stage and no longer
> > by the resolve stage. It has become a simple syntax error. I hope this is
> > ok.
>
> I find the error messages now less helpful to users: before the patch
> we got "Rank mismatch in array reference", which was more suitable
> than the newer version with more or less confusing syntax errors.
>
> I assume you tried to find a better solution - but Intel and NAG
> also give syntax errors - so basically I am fine with the patch.
>
> You may want to wait for a second opinion. If nobody else responds
> within the next 2 days, you may proceed nevertheless.
>
> Thanks,
> Harald
>
> > Regtests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / Fedora 39. Ok for mainline?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andre
> > --
> > Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
>
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
