https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88735

--- Comment #6 from Ev Drikos <drikosev at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to martin from comment #5)
> Hi Ev,
> 
> the testcase is actually derived from a smart pointer implementation (where
> i is the reference count, shared between all smart pointers [hence
> allocatable will not do], and incremented upon sharing). It would be nice to
> have the bug fixed, though I have seen too many (subtle) bugs with
> assignments by different compilers that I try not to use them. But thanks
> for providing a better and more thorough testcase.

Ok, then. 

Of course I don't think my test case is better. But as I see the underlying
implementation, I feel (maybe wrong) that any allocatables would sky rocket the
complexity of the solution.

Regards.

Reply via email to