------- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-28 22:19 -------
Update summary.
> I see. If component x were an allocatable instead of a pointer,
> would I then get an error?
Yes.
> It might be useful to emit a warning when -Wsurprising (or some
> other option turned on by -Wall) is enabled.
I changed the title now.
> I could not yet find this wording in the standard. Do you by chance
> know the exact verse? The only thing I could find was:
Sorry, I was too lazy to search the standard and wrote how I understood the
standard (copied over from the PR without realizing that I was not copying the
standard).
> [F2003 draft]
> 5.1.2.7 INTENT attribute
> [...]
> The INTENT (IN) attribute for a pointer
> dummy argument specifies that during the execution of the procedure
> its association shall not be changed except that it may become
> undefined if the target is deallocated other than through the pointer
> (16.4.2.1.3).
I think this is the essential point: The value of the pointer target may change
but not the *association status*. Thus assigning to a pointer is OK,
allocating, deallocating or re-associating is invalid.
--
burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords|accepts-invalid |diagnostic
Known to work|4.4.0 |
Priority|P4 |P3
Summary|[4.3 regression] Missed |Add -Wsurprising for
|error with assignment to |pointers arguments with
|INTENT(IN) argument |INTENT(IN)
Target Milestone|4.3.1 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36271
