[Flang] Failed to compile CHARACTER type declaration statement for array

[DanielCChen]

Flang failed to compile the following code

character      cv3*(3)(3)
end

>flang-new -ffree-form ch1.f
error: Could not parse ch1.f
./ch1.f:1:18: error: expected end of statement
  character  cc*(3)(3)
                   ^
./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: specification construct
  character  cc*(3)(3)
  ^
./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: declaration construct
  character  cc*(3)(3)
  ^
./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: specification part
  character  cc*(3)(3)
  ^
./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: main program
  character  cc*(3)(3)
  ^

gfortran issues an error also. XLF and ifort both compile it successfully. The code seems standard conforming to me.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-bug

Author: Daniel Chen (DanielCChen)

Flang failed to compile the following code ``` character cv3*(3)(3) end >flang-new -ffree-form ch1.f error: Could not parse ch1.f ./ch1.f:1:18: error: expected end of statement character cc*(3)(3) ^ ./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: specification construct character cc*(3)(3) ^ ./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: declaration construct character cc*(3)(3) ^ ./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: specification part character cc*(3)(3) ^ ./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: main program character cc*(3)(3) ^ ``` gfortran issues an error also. XLF and ifort both compile it successfully. The code seems standard conforming to me.

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-flang-frontend

Author: Daniel Chen (DanielCChen)

Flang failed to compile the following code ``` character cv3*(3)(3) end >flang-new -ffree-form ch1.f error: Could not parse ch1.f ./ch1.f:1:18: error: expected end of statement character cc*(3)(3) ^ ./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: specification construct character cc*(3)(3) ^ ./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: declaration construct character cc*(3)(3) ^ ./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: specification part character cc*(3)(3) ^ ./ch1.f:1:1: in the context: main program character cc*(3)(3) ^ ``` gfortran issues an error also. XLF and ifort both compile it successfully. The code seems standard conforming to me.

[klausler]

Yes, that's conforming usage. EDIT: no, it's not, see below.

[klausler]

Correction: it's not conforming in the context of an entity-decl; see F'2023 R803. But it seems like an extension worth supporting for portability reasons.

[DanielCChen]

Correction: it's not conforming in the context of an entity-decl; see F'2023 R803. But it seems like an extension worth supporting for portability reasons.

Yeah. You are right. The array-spec should following the object name. Thanks for adding the extension.