------- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-15 23:02 ------- (In reply to comment #6) > The test case in comment #5 has issues which go beyond the usage of > 'deferred': > The variant below, which has no deferred procedures, compiles, but produces > wrong code (the operators are always resolved to the TBPs of the base type, > although they should be polymorphic). This should go into a separate PR.
Just opened PR42385 for this. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42144
