Another example attached (TryingToBeGeneric.f90) that gives an ICE with 11.1.051, which is probably unrelated to the previous one (message is "internal error: Please visit...").

While I've still got your attention...  some F2003 polymorphism questions.  This example (TryingToBeSpecificInAnAbstractWay.f90), when compiled with /check:all /warn:all /traceback, compiles, but then dies with an access violation, apparently at the ALLOCATE statement (the very first executable statement of the program proper!).  This is a bit disappointing even for me - normally I make it at least ten lines in before everything's gone to pot - so any hints appreciated.  Without /check:all /warn:all the crash pops up later.

Second question is around type compatibility of polymorphic dummy and actual arguments.  The previous example has an abstract "base" type (AbstractType) and then a "concrete" extension of that type (AbstractTypeExt).  There is then a procedure (not a type bound one) that has a "CLASS(AbstractType), INTENT(IN) :: obj" dummy.  Quoting from the good PDF... "A polymorphic entity that is not an unlimited polymorphic entity is type compatible with entities of the same type or any of its extensions".  As a result, I would have thought that I could poke in a TYPE(AbstractTypeExt) actual argument to that procedure (see commented out statements with !xxx).  Under 11.1.51 that doesn't "match" and I have to use the obj%parent syntax to get things to work.  Is that just a IVF F2003 implementation-not-there-yet-issue, or an IanH F2003 standard-still-beyond-your-comprehension issue?

Thanks,

IanH