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 D9EE73858C66; Fri,  1 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D9EE73858C66
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1709316028;
	bh=0JGWyQJKujNOUU/FC2NQvlKZ+eQO30JxXMmwuBZ3sRA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=vyczzCdtlbiSGPZ07GMolm6RE47h/9LKaWBK43dRQmTJVIkUwlFcFOVte1leAaoDr
	 7rLo6s8eFvVxycROE03hb+w8n9UB1fnmObZH8LgpoV6XM8gcNcbHUUYOtOIk99GX8C
	 qET/Ld6XgftGJO5/qiFUywcreusIvO7CvJ7JT1W4=
From: "Bader at lrz dot de" <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 18:00:28 +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: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: Bader at lrz dot de
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-114188-4-eeov2To2v5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114188-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114188-4@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=3D114188

--- Comment #2 from Bader at lrz dot de <Bader at lrz dot de> ---
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 exist=
s.

The consequences are:

(1) the intrinsic assignment becomes unavailable (because the last sentence=
 in=20
    10.2.1.1 establishes a mutual exclusion).

(2) Any further details on how the subroutine is set up must be appropriate=
ly
    handled by the programmer (e.g., supplying POINTER objects in my exampl=
e's
    LHS) - this is what is meant by "The interpretation of a defined assign=
ment
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 i=
s=20
consistent with it.

Cheers
Reinhold=