https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539
--- Comment #30 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Hi, what I mean is if you use "up" several times and list the source of the calling routines, do you encounter something like call foo([1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0]) or call foo((/1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0/)) ? This is what I see for netcdf, and then I can also understand what goes wrong. Such an array constructor would be in read-only memory, and the current version would try to write back to it on exit - ouch :-)
