From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82E9C3858D1E; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 21:12:46 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 82E9C3858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id w26so4000340pfj.6; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 13:12:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OkhflIZLCx5okXblN+I33P9XUzXjwcc/kV/aIDG2Mn8=; b=idTyt6wu/H1/X4yiG+Vipr3bkbsRpFbHQKmQ49KuIpb3aAnCWlxsY6FZoByO+RhyTf PbAUC6GK2P9xwYf2v94iXtYD2lz5uVURwUStC2RUarR+P0BeYXqR5LYLpTLUxG0BsE6R Gb5Jdu4psL6geHxE81ey2xI8Z8/DWFAx33f0nKY/k/W/zVP8t0SvWs5l8bmjiFxNE2Ob V44ldQuDD62WRjbl7wuGPf55rSk/qACw/Wn+3qW57xWXI3RRuYMPcpHYaKSshz9sYLD6 x3is7r1gbOWuSDabItU3R1DZvhOz2S+QUy8BhuK+Fon/slXBdkv+qdGTBHUqMaA+13Nm nINw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=OkhflIZLCx5okXblN+I33P9XUzXjwcc/kV/aIDG2Mn8=; b=0QqL3KEfQNCjJSBmTCdJR02Sak7RIyTIbG4A16Po0QRL47AmAxqYILkjDw3d5wqD/9 NTrPuh8uouvGdIODKbYpA0wn89+R+/3Bq49ivsvFwSzNAq9dngkpESu5QpmXddXQAsTR HK8qYLuWExFH34VSDkf4zP16GRfKMDVgKAB+NyhqVjoQBkAKnDu8KZVapFlOGe5nN0qW nYiUOKeRM+Gc6eFEwgQoDsTJwuZEnO5YykpEeuWBYuCzrlSN1gjXWeEpT2iZBs6BEcvk NYlzQxPXYuX1plM4N49eU49DtNZqMsqy/ya61CTQFU/SckY+0vEZr5Y3+aqKYtUXXkwl bBEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kpZD+I4469QiUckzYbZSXJuHet8IsXEOvwHIf6b45L/7z7ki2py G65PsyFAEOYnet/3LlBb2Bw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXvohFbzEqgaUwhIDZZz09Fb/X4acGPhZUs8kPicSIzFSgIhCObbU4fr9RlxS83aK4PttJ1e0A== X-Received: by 2002:a62:58c7:0:b0:577:3e5c:85e5 with SMTP id m190-20020a6258c7000000b005773e5c85e5mr2788008pfb.0.1671829965373; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 13:12:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.20] ([50.37.188.226]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v15-20020aa799cf000000b00576f9773c80sm2879951pfi.206.2022.12.23.13.12.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Dec 2022 13:12:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <729ccaf7-8ce4-4aba-f4e4-fc2b18001154@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 13:12:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fortran: incorrect array bounds when bound intrinsic used in decl [PR108131] Content-Language: en-US To: Harald Anlauf , fortran , gcc-patches References: From: Jerry D In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 12/17/22 1:21 PM, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: > Dear all, > > the previous fix for pr103505 introduced a regression that could lead > to wrong array bounds when LBOUND/UBOUND were used in the array spec > of a declaration. The reason was that we tried to simplify too early > the array element spec, which appears to have interfered with the > subtle semantics of the bound intrinsics. > > The solution is to undo the fix for pr103505. It turns out that > there are other code changes in place that were put in place to > fix related ICEs, and which handle that one, too, and only lead > to a change of the emitted error diagnostics. > > Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? Yes, OK for mainline. My thought is that this is the kind of bug that can go unseen with incorrect array bounds so is a good candidate to backport. At least 12, 10 and 11 if you have time and it is applicable. > > As this is a 10/11/12/13 regression, I would like to backport > as seems fit. > > Thanks, > Harald >