https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #6 from Chris ---
> Which one do you mean exactly? Shouldn't they all use the user-defined
> assignment function?
Yes, that's right--they all should. Sorry, I didn't have the code up in front
of me when I wrote that so I was a bit i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Chris from comment #4)
> I tried compiling (my original example) on a different box, this one with
> gfortran 6.2.0 obtained from the ubuntu-toolchain-r/test PPA. I got
>
> [..]
> gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #4 from Chris ---
I tried compiling (my original example) on a different box, this one with
gfortran 6.2.0 obtained from the ubuntu-toolchain-r/test PPA. I got
Driving: gfortran-6 -v minimal.f90 -l gfortran -l m -shared-libgcc
Using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Somewhat reduced test case (without all the abstract stuff):
module types_mod
implicit none
type, public :: t1
integer :: a
contains
procedure :: get_t2
end type
type, public :
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
--- C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|
