From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id A7C253858D28; Mon,  7 Feb 2022 15:54:52 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A7C253858D28
From: "pault at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/104382] Finalization of parent components not compliant
 with standard
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 15:54:52 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-104382-4-10ct0KMKgV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-104382-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-104382-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2022 15:54:52 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104382

--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #2)
> crayftn 11 & 12 output:
>=20
>  destructor4(complicated) 2*2.
>  destructor5 (simple2) 5
>  destructor5 (simple2) 6
>  destructor2(simple) 2*1
>  destructor4(complicated) 4.,  5.
>  destructor5 (simple2) -1
>  destructor5 (simple2) -2
>  destructor2(simple) 3,  4
>  final_count after assignment =3D  8
>  destructor4(complicated) 4.,  5.
>  destructor5 (simple2) -1
>  destructor5 (simple2) -2
>  destructor2(simple) 3,  4
>  final_count after deallocation =3D  12

That seems to make a majority vote for the present gfortran behaviour then.

Thanks

Paul=