https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39230
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> Consider the following snippet:
>
> implicit none
> integer, pointer :: p
> print *,associated(p)
> end
>
> [...]
> Right now the above program simply prints
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39230
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1)
> I think what you want is some -fcheck=pointer option (I think there is a PR
> about his). That option would initialize pointer with some bogus value, e
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39230
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|pault at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39230
Paul Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
Assigne
--- Comment #4 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-19 07:08 ---
> (ii) Once we have array descriptors that flag the status of the data, include
> pointers in the club?
I prefer to have simple pointers for scalars and use the descriptor only for
arrays/strings/dimension(..) for pe
--- Comment #3 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-19 05:52 ---
I wonder if this should not be fixed ultimately by:
(i) Allowing allocatable scalars, which should allow rank 0 descriptors to take
the field; and
(ii) Once we have array descriptors that flag the status of the data, i
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-18 17:32 ---
The other bug is PR 29616.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39230
--- Comment #1 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-02-18 17:28 ---
> This is actually invalid
Yes, but this is a requirement to the program(mer) not to the compiler.
> and should probably trigger a runtime error.
Yes, but only with some checking option, otherwise it really gets too
