> thanks for your good question. I think it is equivalent, as it seems that
> GFC_DESCRIPTOR_TYPE_P (type) implies either sym->attr.allocatable or
> sym->attr.pointer. To check, I rank a check-fortran with the explicit patch
> below, and this made no difference. Code gen for a number of addition
>> The following fixes PR63152 zeroing the data field only for allocatables,
>> not pointers. The benefit of the patch is a >small speedup, and it avoids
>> that code starts to rely on behavior that is undefined in the standard. With
>> this patch, >something like
>>
>> INTEGER, DIMENSION(:), PO
> The following fixes PR63152 zeroing the data field only for allocatables, not
> pointers. The benefit of the patch is a small speedup, and it avoids that
> code starts to rely on behavior that is undefined in the standard. With this
> patch, something like
>
> INTEGER, DIMENSION(:), POINTER :
