From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp-29.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 386BD3885508 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:08:36 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 386BD3885508 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=orange.fr Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=orange.fr Received: from [192.168.1.17] ([86.215.174.255]) by smtp.orange.fr with ESMTPA id nmhQo0WOIJvOZnmhVovCKH; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 22:08:34 +0200 X-ME-Helo: [192.168.1.17] X-ME-Auth: bW9yaW4tbWlrYWVsQG9yYW5nZS5mcg== X-ME-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 22:08:34 +0200 X-ME-IP: 86.215.174.255 Message-ID: <595dbe80-6bcc-3c2a-7c16-123e6abee152@orange.fr> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 22:08:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.3 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fortran: BOZ literal constants are not compatible to any type [PR103413] To: Harald Anlauf , fortran , gcc-patches References: Content-Language: fr, en-US From: Mikael Morin In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hello, Le 26/10/2022 à 21:15, Harald Anlauf via Fortran a écrit : > Dear all, > > a BOZ as source-expression in an ALLOCATE statement could lead > to an ICE when the allocate-object was a CLASS variable. > Since a BOZ has no type, we can handle it as type incompatible > with any type. This is also what the Cray compiler does for > the code in the testcase. > > Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? > > The PR is marked as a 10/11/12/13 regression, so OK for backports? > OK for both, thanks.