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.
next prev 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: linkBe 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).