https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105243
--- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #6)
> > I quoted the F2018 standard constraint.
> >
> > C708 An entity declared with the CLASS keyword shall be a dummy
> > argument or have the ALLOCATABLE or POINTER attribute.
> >
> > class(t), parameter :: y
> >
> > would seem to be missing all of the three listed attributes.
You're right here.
> I'll also add
>
> 7.3.2.3 CLASS type specifier
>
> The CLASS type specifier is used to declare polymorphic entities.
> A polymorphic entity is a data entity that is able to be of differing
> dynamic types during program execution.
>
> Does is make sense to given a named constant the polymorphic property?
Well, I could imagine named constants that do not have a type (e.g. when
using CLASS(*)), as well as named constants that refer to an extensible
type. The F2023 draft even has CLASSOF. Where will this finally lead...
I think I should ask the Intel people why their compiler accepts
program p
type t
integer :: i = 1
end type t
type(t), parameter :: a = t() ! Legal
class(t), parameter :: b = t() ! Likely not
class(*), parameter :: c = t() ! ...
class(*), parameter :: d = 1 ! ...
end
