Bug 20925 - "Possible frontend bug: array constructor not expanded"
Summary: "Possible frontend bug: array constructor not expanded"
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 19925
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: fortran (show other bugs)
Version: 4.1.0
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
: 21394 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-04-09 22:25 UTC by Andrew Pinski
Modified: 2005-05-14 20:58 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Host:
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed: 2005-04-15 12:37:42

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Andrew Pinski 2005-04-09 22:25:34 UTC 
The following code ICEs:
program sel
    implicit none
    integer,parameter              :: n=1000
    integer			   :: cste, i
    integer, dimension(n)          :: vect=(/ (-i, i=1,n) /)
    cste = vect(1)
end

t.f90: In function 'MAIN__':
t.f90:6: internal compiler error: Possible frontend bug: array constructor not expanded
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
Comment 1 Andrew Pinski 2005-04-09 22:27:27 UTC 
Note this one and PR 20923, I found with the benchmark here:
<http://www.idris.fr/data/publications/F95/test_F95_english.html>
which is about f95 features.
Comment 2 Andrew Pinski 2005-04-09 22:29:18 UTC 
Hmm,
              /* Problems occur when we get something like
                 integer :: a(lots) = (/(i, i=1,lots)/)  */
              /* TODO: Unexpanded array initializers.  */
              internal_error
                ("Possible frontend bug: array constructor not expanded");

Shouldn't we just create a loop at this point?
Comment 3 Andrew Pinski 2005-05-05 20:12:04 UTC 
*** Bug 21394 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Andrew Pinski 2005-05-14 20:58:22 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19925 ***