https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
--- Comment #7 from Lionel GUEZ ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> Point being that quoting some third-party
> interpretation of what one version of the Fortran standard
> says is of limited value.
OK. I am learning here. I thought
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> @Steve: that's pretty basic F2003 stuff, almost TR15581...
Yes, I know. Point being that quoting some third-party
interpretation of what one version of the Fortran standard
says is of limited
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
--- Comment #4 from Lionel GUEZ ---
Well, you will find that assignment of an expression of derived type to a
variable of the same type was already available in Fortran 95 (for example
Metcalf, 1999, Fortran 90/95 explained, section 3.9). But
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:29:47PM +, guez at lmd dot ens.fr wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
>
> --- Comment #2 from Lionel GUEZ ---
> Sure, the issue goes away if you specify
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
--- Comment #2 from Lionel GUEZ ---
Sure, the issue goes away if you specify the components.
When you say "the likely correct line", do you imply that the line without the
components is incorrect? I would insist that the line without the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98433
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
