------- Comment #6 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 18:21 ------- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > In the latter case, it is non-empty if ubound > lbound only. Comparing > > ubound and lbound according to the stride to check for zero-sized arrays > > doesn't make sense in this case (see dimension 2 of dla). > > Indeed - the fix can be done in gfc_conv_intrinsic_bound. I will regtest > tonight and submit accordingly. > > Paul >
Wrong! - this patch causes several regressions. I'll have to see how the code in the pointer assignment should be changed. Cheers Paul -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38852
