===================================================================
@@ -1773,6 +1773,7 @@ show_code_node (int level, gfc_code *c)
{
const char* blocktype;
gfc_namespace *saved_ns;
+ gfc_association_list *alist;
if (c->ext.block.assoc)
blocktype = "ASSOCIATE";
@@ -1780,6 +1781,12 @@ show_code_node (int level, gfc_code *c)
blocktype = "BLOCK";
show_indent ();
fprintf (dumpfile, "%s ", blocktype);
+ for (alist = c->ext.block.assoc; alist; alist = alist->next)
+ {
+ fprintf (dumpfile, " %s = ", alist->name);
+ show_expr (alist->target);
+ }
+
++show_level;
ns = c->ext.block.ns;
saved_ns = gfc_current_ns;
@@ -1793,6 +1800,11 @@ show_code_node (int level, gfc_code *c)
break;
}
+ case EXEC_END_BLOCK:
+ /* Only come here when there is a label on an
+ END ASSOCIATE construct. */
+ break;
+
case EXEC_SELECT:
d = c->block;
fputs ("SELECT CASE ", dumpfile);
Hello world, the two fixes in the patch - show ASSOCIATE lists if present, to complete the AST dump - fix an ICE where an EXEC_END_BLOCK survived. This can only happen if the END ASSOCIATE or END BLOCK statement had a statement label. If the preference is to use some other format for the ASSOCIATE lists, for example by putting each statement on its own list, I am open to suggestions. Regression-tested (but we don't really test for this). No test case because we don't have the infrastructure for it. No user impact expected (nobody but us developers uses -fdump-fortran-original, I think). OK for trunk? Regards Thomas 2016-02-14 Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@gcc.gnu.org> * dump-parse-tree.c (show_code_node): Print association list of a block if present. Handle EXEC_END_BLOCK.