https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120958
--- Comment #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #13) > I think we have quite a few bad choices here, each with different drawbacks. > I don't think we should do nothing, or pessimize existing code. > > Hmm... what about adding an option which sets ASYNCHRONOUS on every > assumed size and explicit size (i.e. F77-style) arguments? This > would restrict the effect to those users who explicitly ask for it. Why adding an option? Why not doing it for all cases where SRA kicks in? And does assumed size really fail, or only explicit size? > And no, it would not be elegant. That's why I think it should either not be an option, or an option that is on by default.
