--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Last reconfirmed|2005-04-09 19:19:56 |2005-07-23 02:24:21
date|
--- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-04-23 14:03
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> doesn't make any more sense to me. What am I missing?
a constraint in 11.3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20845
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23 13:53
---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 4.4 : 'Unlike explicit initialization, default initialization does not imply
> that the object has the SAVE attribute'
So? I still don't see why this is invalid. The error messag
--- Additional Comments From jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2005-04-23 13:42
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I didn't find anything requiring this in the standard, and it would seem
weird,
> given that SAVE is implicit in several cases. See also note 4.27.
4.4 : 'Unlike explicit initializa
--- Additional Comments From tobi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-22 14:17
---
I didn't find anything requiring this in the standard, and it would seem weird,
given that SAVE is implicit in several cases. See also note 4.27.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-09
19:19 ---
OK, it took me time to see what was missing here, but the g95 error message is
rather clear:
"Module variable 'x' at (1) with default components must have the SAVE
attribute"
Confirmed and marked as min
