From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C23D03858D1E; Wed, 2 Aug 2023 16:51:01 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C23D03858D1E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1690995061; bh=9dYiV0K6TaFuy0DOuVJxjkOtizVtj6bJkTNGSW1OnDc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=mxP6oY4f/MawLagkzF8t7OReU/EysQZ1OVL5MPzKSC4cMbfc7sS7KdtWKkLVjo+b8 kJqmEx0ly6n3mO9fsQliAGoQ1J06UOszHzS/6xeAvbMR5DV+xMdyqO5IFS6PcAJO/T VXbCoKbGPWJMcab3fUy7UR61VHS1FrCamuA1qAJE= From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/88286] [OOP] gfortran reports conflicting intent(in) with an intent(in) declared class variable Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2023 16:51:01 +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: 8.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING 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: cc 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=3D88286 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #2) > Appears fixed in 12-branch and later. Adding known-to work. >=20 > Can we close this one? I think the answer is "yes". It comes down to "too many bugs and too few contributors". If someone can identify the commit that fixed this bug, the= n by all means it can be back-ported. It's unclear to me if it is worth the eff= ort to find the commit.=