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 47BD33858D28; Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:49:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 47BD33858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1711248555;
	bh=pKxXcC9S1I3Tf6nt/nzvgtNTL0/WOAqPZp1lGiaByrM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=X4KeJ7UTHS0TivAgie69ExA79pTAKFezQBKRD25O33GJpfMs4mwf88blp+SjdC5pQ
	 Vx7jXcxK4wC7zZn8nwvaj6owAN4vjun8dIOtHErQXb08mnMfTsNKczqWDc5Vay9yZI
	 jAQOUG/CscKKwcvRcsq2Vy8dR5ihFCIS9iixu/5M=
From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/114438] Missed constraint F2023:c7108
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:49:14 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-114438-4-UJFQ2vUH7O@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-114438-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-114438-4@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=3D114438

--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #5)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #3)
> > The same text existed in F2018, so it is not new: F2018:C7103 and Note =
1.
> >=20
> > Either every compiler developer team misunderstood that clause, or we
> > need an interp, based on the example, to be able to convince all of the=
m.
> >=20
> > (I know of developers who do overwrite default constructors, and it cur=
rently
> > works "everywhere", so clarification is important.)
> >=20
> > What do you think?
>=20
> I sent an email to the J3 mailing list
>=20
> https://mailman.j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2024-March/014649.html
>=20
> I included a question whether keywords can be used.

See mailing list for response.  gfortran's current behavior
appears corrects with the possible exception that gfortran
does not detect and report the violation of a numbered
constraint.  Perhaps, a warning should be emitted under
-Wall or -Wsurprising.=