public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/114188] Overloading assignment does not invalidate intrinsic assignment
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 19:11:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-114188-4-UxlJ1CAYmZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-114188-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114188

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
           Priority|P3                          |P4
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2024-03-01
           Keywords|                            |accepts-invalid, wrong-code
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bader@lrz.de from comment #2)
> You note that
> 
> > Unfortunately, the five requirements in 10.2.1.4 for defined assignment
> > do not say anything about argument association.
> 
> Hmm, one could see this as "intentionally" instead of "unfortunately": If
> the requirements in 10.2.1.4 are fulfilled, then a defined assignment exists.
>>   
> The consequences are:
> 
> (1) the intrinsic assignment becomes unavailable (because the last sentence
> in 
>     10.2.1.1 establishes a mutual exclusion).
> 
> (2) Any further details on how the subroutine is set up must be appropriately
>     handled by the programmer (e.g., supplying POINTER objects in my
> example's
>     LHS) - this is what is meant by "The interpretation of a defined
> assignment is
>     provided by the subroutine that defines it". The NOTE appearing later
   to me does not seem germane to the question at hand.
> 
> While my starting assumption may be wrong, the other compilers' behaviour is 
> consistent with it.
> 

I wasn't assuming that you were wrong and I've read enough of
your posts in J3 mailing list to trust your interpretation.
You've confirmed a few of my suspicions on how you were reading
the standard.  Hopefully, the clarity will help whomever jumps
down the rabbit hole to fix the bug.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-01 19:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-01  9:40 [Bug fortran/114188] New: " Bader at lrz dot de
2024-03-01 17:28 ` [Bug fortran/114188] " kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-01 18:00 ` Bader at lrz dot de
2024-03-01 19:11 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2024-03-01 20:25 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-114188-4-UxlJ1CAYmZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).