https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114188
kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Priority|P3 |P4
Last reconfirmed| |2024-03-01
Keywords| |accepts-invalid, wrong-code
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to ba...@lrz.de from comment #2)
> You note that
>
> > Unfortunately, the five requirements in 10.2.1.4 for defined assignment
> > do not say anything about argument association.
>
> Hmm, one could see this as "intentionally" instead of "unfortunately": If
> the requirements in 10.2.1.4 are fulfilled, then a defined assignment exists.
>>
> The consequences are:
>
> (1) the intrinsic assignment becomes unavailable (because the last sentence
> in
> 10.2.1.1 establishes a mutual exclusion).
>
> (2) Any further details on how the subroutine is set up must be appropriately
> handled by the programmer (e.g., supplying POINTER objects in my
> example's
> LHS) - this is what is meant by "The interpretation of a defined
> assignment is
> provided by the subroutine that defines it". The NOTE appearing later
to me does not seem germane to the question at hand.
>
> While my starting assumption may be wrong, the other compilers' behaviour is
> consistent with it.
>
I wasn't assuming that you were wrong and I've read enough of
your posts in J3 mailing list to trust your interpretation.
You've confirmed a few of my suspicions on how you were reading
the standard. Hopefully, the clarity will help whomever jumps
down the rabbit hole to fix the bug.
