https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110224
--- Comment #7 from Neil Carlson <neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com> --- > Was it as a result of the nagfor error, perhaps? If so, have you already sent > them a bug report? I actually didn't originally try that commented-out assignment with nagfor, but confirm that it gets it wrong as you said. I'll give you the honor of submitting a bug report. nagfor does get the ASSOCIATE part correct, which was what I was what I was after in the first place when I encountered this bug.
