https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108961
Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|87477 |
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pault at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Since this has nothing to do with the associate construct, I have removed the
blocking of PR87477.
That said, I am onto it :-) I cannot see anything untoward with the produced
code at the moment and, since there is the dependence on whether or not the
subroutine is in a module, I can only surmise that there is some subtle
difference in memory usage.
Paul
Referenced Bugs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477
[Bug 87477] [meta-bug] [F03] issues concerning the ASSOCIATE statement
