>> Sorry for the belated review. >> >> + bool ptr = sym->attr.pointer || sym->attr.allocatable >> + || (sym->ts.type == BT_CLASS >> + && CLASS_DATA (sym)->attr.class_pointer); >> >> >> That looks quite imbalanced. Why do you not take care of >> CLASS_DATA(sym)->attr.allocatable? Actually, shouldn't that always be true >> for BT_CLASS in this context? A BT_CLASS should either be a >> pointer/allocatable or a dummy argument - but the latter is never >> initialized (while being a dummy). > > right. Then it should be ok to just check for BT_CLASS. Updated patch > attached. > > >> Otherwise, it looks OK to me. > > Thanks. I will commit the attached version after another regtest.
Committed as r201521. Cheers, Janus
