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.
