From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6433 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2011 15:45:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 6253 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2011 15:45:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:44:53 +0000 From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/51266] [F08] Pointer initialization in PARAMETER Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:48:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg02213.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51266 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus 2011-11-22 15:44:34 UTC --- Hmm, I somehow have the feeling that encountered this bug already. See the thread starting at http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2011-November/004840.html I think I concur with Malcolm that the code of comment 0 cannot be implemented (at least not without combining the linker with the front-end compiler, something no one wants to do): http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2011-November/004851.html On the other hand, I think Bob right at http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/2011-November/004857.html that the current standard seems to have a loop hole. I probably should have realized the discussion earlier - on the other hand, Bob seems to insist (cf. link above) that the program is not only valid but should also be valid - otherwise, I presume, he wouldn't have posted it at comp.lang.fortran. (A PR might already exist for this thread.)