Hi Tobias, Have you checked that:
subroutine sub(a) class(*),pointer :: a a => null() end subroutine does not give an error? I think that it is why the check was introduced. Cheers Paul On 13 October 2013 09:51, Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de> wrote: > *PING*: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-10/msg00018.html > > Additionally, I'd like to early ping for the do concurrent patch: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-10/msg00022.html , even if the ME review > is still pending. > > Tobias Burnus wrote: >> >> The patch is rather obvious. The question is just why was the check there >> at the first place. >> >> Build and regtested on x86-64-gnu-linux. >> OK for the trunk? >> >> Tobias > > -- The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. --Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
