https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101199
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #5)
> (In reply to ygal klein from comment #4)
> >)
> >
> > Thank you for the reply.
> >
> > After posting the bug report - I saw that implementing (inout) as your
> > number 1 suggestion - dodges the problem - though as you mentioned having
> > inout for this in an init routine is somewhat unnatural.
> >
> > The 2nd suggestion is something that I was trying to avoid in the first
> > place - i.e copying a whole type (this minimal example is a small type - but
> > originally it is a type with a lot of instances and procedures)
> >
> > In fact - I could have had advance as a function that returns a type - but
> > then I would be paying the price of copyin assignment of a big type.
> >
> > Anyway - you conclude that gfortran is behaving as it should and that the
> > fact that ifort works - is somewhat a coincidence?
>
> Let's see what the gfortran developers have to say about this. In any case
> it looks strange if you try to call an init routine from a different TBP of
> the same object. An init routine is usually called only at the very
> instantiation of the object. If you want a shallow copy then you need a
> pointer.
I can confirm Jürgen's analysis.
