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 C34DE3858D28; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 14:10:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C34DE3858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1687270248;
	bh=h2k/Rwr3RViGlzNCzmfLgM2i9PU/F31esnZE4PuM0MU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=YEb+y/cCOEWJFeevynD5qomTspGcn0+h1SQvoeKQuvdr6A0PjfYy83ZzI2q+OSfa7
	 CLMGIsD4SJrimmXjEz0UoaqXsWCYELgKZyvr6Fbn08OtcUsyFPbRDavhB9wbK0XKeO
	 6hTpUEDVrM5O98KHXDt0cAzQf6Rk0AEnJap/3Ae0=
From: "pault at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/110224] Rejects valid: function reference with data
 pointer result as lhs in assignment
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 14:10:48 +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: 13.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
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-110224-4-AgTkzy2FJk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110224-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110224-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110224

--- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Neil Carlson from comment #5)
> >>   !x%var_ptr() =3D 2.0 ! THIS IS NOT REJECTED AS EXPECTED
> >
> > I could have phrased the comment better. I expected that assignment to =
be okay
> > (i.e., not rejected) and it wasn't.  Sorry for the confusion.
>=20
> Argh, I'm just making things worse.  That assignment was okay and WAS wha=
t I
> expected.

OK - these things happen :-)

Was it as a result of the nagfor error, perhaps? If so, have you already se=
nt
them a bug report?

Paul=