Hi Harald,

>
> I had only a quick glance at your patch.  I guess you unintentionally
> forgot to remove those parts that you already committed for PR110987,
> along with the finalize-testcases.
>

Guilty as charged. I guess I got out of the wrong side of the bed :-)

>
> I am still trying to find the precise paragraph in the standard
> you refer to regarding INTENT(OUT) and default initialization.
>

Page 114 of the draft F2023 standard:
"The INTENT (OUT) attribute for a nonpointer dummy argument specifies that
the dummy argument becomes undefined on invocation of the procedure, except
for any subcomponents that are default-initialized (7.5.4.6)."
With the fix, gfortran behaves in the same way as ifort and nagfor.

On rereading the patch, I think that s/"and use the passed value"/"and
leave undefined"/ or some such is in order.


> While at it, I think I found a minor nit in testcase pr112407a.f90:
> component x%i appears undefined the first time it is printed.
>

Fixed - thanks for pointing it out.

A correct patch is attached.

Thanks for looking at the previous, overloaded version.

Paul



>
> > 2024-03-30  Paul Thomas  <pault@gcc.gnu.org>
> >
> > gcc/fortran
> > PR fortran/112407
> > *resolve.cc (resolve_procedure_expression): Change the test for
> > for recursion in the case of hidden procedures from modules.
> > (resolve_typebound_static): Add warning for possible recursive
> > calls to typebound procedures.
> > * trans-expr.cc (gfc_trans_class_init_assign): Do not apply
> > default initializer to class dummy where component initializers
> > are all null.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/
> > PR fortran/112407
> > * gfortran.dg/pr112407a.f90: New test.
> > * gfortran.dg/pr112407b.f90: New test.
> >
>
>