http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56968
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-04-15 18:35:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Index: gcc/fortran/expr.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- gcc/fortran/expr.c (revision 197943)
> > +++ gcc/fortran/expr.c (working copy)
> > @@ -3540,7 +3540,11 @@ gfc_check_pointer_assign (gfc_expr *lvalue, gfc_ex
> > }
> > else if (rvalue->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION)
> > {
> > - s2 = rvalue->symtree->n.sym->result;
> > + if (rvalue->symtree->n.sym->attr.generic)
> > + s2 = rvalue->value.function.esym->result;
> > + else
> > + s2 = rvalue->symtree->n.sym->result;
>
> I think you should directly use
>
> if (rvalue->value.function.esym)
> s2 = rvalue->value.function.esym->result;
yes, I also thought about this variant. Might indeed be the better choice.
> I was additionally wondering whether one should also take care of isym besides
> esym, but probably no intrinsic returns a pointer.
I could not find any intrinsic function which returns a pointer, and even less
so a procedure pointer (which is what this patch is dealing with).
