From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-476928-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25820 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2015 20:57:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 25746 invoked by uid 48); 11 Feb 2015 20:57:14 -0000
From: "anlauf at gmx dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/64927] [4.8 Regression] Surprising error with -Wsurprising (-Wall) and TRANSFER + C_ASSOCIATED
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: anlauf at gmx dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-64927-4-xOPsHFosYT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64927-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64927-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg01261.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64927

--- Comment #9 from Harald Anlauf <anlauf at gmx dot de> ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7)
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 07:31:50PM +0000, anlauf at gmx dot de wrote:
> > 
> > IMO it is not fixed on 4.8.  If there is no easy solution, I'd rather
> > prefer to mark it in an appropriate way (wontfix?), so that others
> > can see that this problem is known for particular gcc versions.
> > 
> 
> You're more than welcomed to backport whatever patch(es) fixes
> the issue to 4.8 branch.

After Dominique pointed out a range of revisions where the
bug disappeared in the 4.9 branch, I browsed through the list
of svn log messages.  However, all fortran-related commits that
looked interesting to me (some of them TRANSFER related) appeared
to have backports to the 4.8 branch.  Maybe I was not careful enough.

If I'd knew which one fixed it for 4.9, I could at least try.
And, since you mentioned that, I'm not thrown off by C++.
(Although I personally don't use it if I can avoid it).