https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I think we have quite a few bad choices here, each with different drawbacks. I don't think we should do nothing, or pessimize existing code. Hmm... what about adding an option which sets ASYNCHRONOUS on every assumed size and explicit size (i.e. F77-style) arguments? This would restrict the effect to those users who explicitly ask for it. And no, it would not be elegant.
