Re: [FORTRAN PATCH] PR30400: ANY not accepted as FORALL mask

[Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>]

Paul Richard Thomas wrote:
> Tobi,
>
> > > there's one corner case which I think we should put into a testcase: a
> > > mask expression which uses the '==' operator, something like "forall
> > > (j=1:5, j==2)"  The code in match_forall_iterator seems to be doing the
> > > right thing when it sees this, but it's worth making sure.
>
> >      <var> = <start>:<end>[:<stride>][, <scalar mask>]  */ ?
> >
> > 7.5.4.1
> >
> > R747 forall-construct is forall-construct-stmt
> > [forall-body-construct ] ...
> > end-forall-stmt
> > R748 forall-construct-stmt is [forall-construct-name :] FORALL 
> > forall-header
> > R749 forall-header is (forall-triplet-spec-list [, scalar-mask-expr] )
> >
> > It looks OK to me or am I missing something (wouldn't be the first 
> > time:))
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Anon: "Ignorantibus veritatem dicere semper utile est."
> >
> > Abraham Lincoln: "It is better to be thought a fool than to speak and
> > remove all doubt."
>
> Does forall_6.f90, with its "i < 3", satisfy you here or do you have
> some specific concern about "=="?

Again, I should have been more verbose.  I'm specifically worried about 
"==" because if we get to "i=", determine that what follows is not a 
triplet-spec, and if we then not backup correctly, we may not match the 
valid "i==j".

- Tobi