------- Comment #9 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2007-02-15 09:55 ------- (In reply to comment #8) > The link to c.l.fortran is: > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/23aa68ecce460e50 > > Richard Main: "The pointer assignment is ok. I [...] don't have > time to adequately peruse the rest of the code. [...] > I do note that you've got generics that have specifics of the same name > as the generic. The standard does allow that, but it wouldn't shock me > if some compilers get as confused by it as I do." > > Both the initial and the reduced program compile and run (seemingly) correctly > with NAG f95 5.1, ifort 9.1 and 10, and sunf95 8.3. > > ............. > > I have still to re-read the test case to check whether TARGET is required by > the standard in this case or not. Adding "target" to msh_ is however not > enough > to prevent the original test case (attachment 13049 [edit]) from crashing in > get_scalar_field_msh; here the dump-tree-original looks like: > However the accessed component is a POINTER to a derived type, I was under the impression that a POINTER component is implicitly available as a TARGET even if its parent is not. Maybe I'm just wrong. Ah, yes, M&R Fortran 95/2003, page 50: "Note that it is sufficient for there to be a pointer at any level of component selection type(entry) :: node ! this has a pointer component next node%next%value is a permitted target" Seems it's legal even without the TARGET attribute. At least one version of XLF is complaining.
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30793
