From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6503C3858C31; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 19:57:35 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6503C3858C31 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1695758255; bh=fDnJsH3hDgFANlsu8UfDg3aZQifpY0ySIUo/Tyiy4Xg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=UspcOk2f5ScNt5DJpxod0/63AoyMxY3bygOM2cfW7+lcHazFk1wBY17UA5JTqRFrX O5sm0kO4uO3VTs85AMC56aSPbffpRn1Mzv/Tqynz+aP4cK7xmpUhhq+Kh3Oj7AwjsM rmRQm9xk98rIFBrPVndRxNhM3xQRbXKW/PayKcu0= From: "anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/67740] Wrong association status of allocatable character pointer in derived types Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 19:57:34 +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: 5.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: cc attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D67740 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 55998 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D55998&action=3Dedit Testcase for scalar pointer The original testcase from comment#0 failed with 9.5.0, but works with 10.5= .0 and newer. An extended deja-gnuified testcase for this is attached. The variant with array-valued pointers in comment#4 still fails.=