http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50227
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-08-29 18:29:16 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > > > (r171654?). > > > > Rather not. This one only concerns type-bound procedures (of which Andrew's > > test case has none): > > Sorry to be such a nuisance, but it is: r171653 works, r171654 crashes. Well, ok. If you say so :) Empirics beats intuition, I guess. Also, you're not a nuisance at all. That's valuable information! Thanks for checking ...
