http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59411
--- Comment #4 from mrestelli <mrestelli at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to janus from comment #1) > (In reply to mrestelli from comment #0) > > > > type(c_ptr), parameter :: p2 = pp > > 1 > > Error: non-constant initialization expression at (1) > > > > However, as far as I can tell, the code is correct (ifort accepts it). > > well, just because ifort accepts it doesn't mean that it's valid. Janus, yes, of course you are right, what I wanted to say was that the code seems fine according to my understanding of what "should happen", and for what is worth also ifort is happy with it. But I see that my sentence was not clear. Thank you for checking the relevant text in the standard, and also for the nice example type(t), parameter :: pp = suitable_initialization_expr_for_type_t type(t), parameter :: p2 = pp I would assume that, provided the first assignment is correct, the second one is always correct, whatever the definition of type(t). Am I right? Marco
