> 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 additional > testcases involving alloc_comp and finalizers looked good as well. So, I > think the original patch is still fine.
OK to commit, then. Thanks for the thorough answer to my question. FX
