Hi Mikael,

Am 08.12.21 um 10:32 schrieb Mikael Morin:
> On 07/12/2021 21:46, Harald Anlauf wrote:
>> Hi Mikael,
>>
>> Am 07.12.21 um 21:17 schrieb Mikael Morin:
>>> The existing code looks dubious to me (or at least difficult to
>>> understand), and your patch doesn’t make that any better.
>>> I would rather try to remove the whole block, and fix the fallout on
>>> move_alloc by adding calls to gfc_check_vardef_context in
>>> gfc_check_move_alloc.
>>> Can you try that instead?
>>
>> I hadn't thought that far but will think about a possibly better
>> solution.
>>
> Hello,
> 
> I thought about it some more over night, and it is probably a poor 
> suggestion to restrict the check to move_alloc only.  The existing code 
> was added for move_alloc, but it has a broader scope.  Still, 
> gfc_check_vardef_context has the correct checks and is the one to be used.

I have played a little, and it took some time to understand the fallout.
Your suggestion to rely on gfc_check_vardef_context actually helped to
uncover another bug: a bad check for CLASS pointer.

See attached for an updated patch and the extended testcase.

Regtested again.  OK now?

Thanks,
Harald