https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114438
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #3) > The same text existed in F2018, so it is not new: F2018:C7103 and Note 1. > > Either every compiler developer team misunderstood that clause, or we > need an interp, based on the example, to be able to convince all of them. > > (I know of developers who do overwrite default constructors, and it currently > works "everywhere", so clarification is important.) > > What do you think? I don't have other compilers to check, but I think my interpretation of F2023:C7108 was intended to prevent ambiguity. Note, F2003:C489 is nearly verbatim with F2023:c7108. So, this goes back years as a constraint. I forgot to mention that I found this at https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/type-mismatch-in-literal-constant-constructor-for-derived-type-allowed/7669
