Hi All, I have extended the testcase - see below and have s/dependent_decls_2/dependent_decls_2.f90/ in the ChnageLog. Cheers Paul ! { dg-do run } ! ! Fix for PR59104 in which the dependence on the old style function result ! was not taken into account in the ordering of auto array allocation and ! characters with dependent lengths. ! ! Contributed by Tobias Burnus ! module m implicit none integer, parameter :: dp = kind([double precision::]) contains function f(x) integer, intent(in) :: x real(dp) f(x/2) real(dp) g(x/2) integer y(size (f)+1) ! This was the original problem integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! Found in development of the fix integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x) ! Check dummy is OK f = 10.0 y = 1 ! Stop -Wall from complaining z = 1 g = 1 w = 1 if (size (f) .ne. 1) stop 1 if (size (g) .ne. 1) stop 2 if (size (y) .ne. 2) stop 3 if (size (z) .ne. 3) stop 4 if (size (w) .ne. 5) stop 5 end function f function e(x) result(f) integer, intent(in) :: x real(dp) f(x/2) real(dp) g(x/2) integer y(size (f)+1) integer z(size (f) + size (y)) ! As was this. integer w(size (f) + size (y) + x) f = 10.0 y = 1 z = 1 g = 1 w = 1 if (size (f) .ne. 2) stop 6 if (size (g) .ne. 2) stop 7 if (size (y) .ne. 3) stop 8 if (size (z) .ne. 5) stop 9 if (size (w) .ne. 9) stop 10 end function function d(x) ! After fixes to arrays, what was needed was known! integer, intent(in) :: x character(len = x/2) :: d character(len = len (d)) :: line character(len = len (d) + len (line)) :: line2 character(len = len (d) + len (line) + x) :: line3 line = repeat ("a", len (d)) line2 = repeat ("b", x) line3 = repeat ("c", len (line3)) if (len (line2) .ne. x) stop 11 if (line3 .ne. "cccccccc") stop 12 d = line end end module m program p use m implicit none real(dp) y y = sum (f (2)) if (int (y) .ne. 10) stop 13 y = sum (e (4)) if (int (y) .ne. 20) stop 14 if (d (4) .ne. "aa") stop 15 end program p On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 at 07:14, Paul Richard Thomas < paul.richard.thomas@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > The attached fixes a problem that, judging by the comments, has been > looked at periodically over the last ten years but just looked to be too > fiendishly complicated to fix. This is not in small part because of the > confusing ordering of dummies in the tlink chain and the unintuitive > placement of all deferred initializations to the front of the init chain in > the wrapped block. > > The result of the existing ordering is that the initialization code for > non-dummy variables that depends on the function result occurs before any > initialization code for the function result itself. The fix ensures that: > (i) These variables are placed correctly in the tlink chain, respecting > inter-dependencies; and (ii) The dependent initializations are placed at > the end of the wrapped block init chain. The details appear in the > comments in the patch. It is entirely possible that a less clunky fix > exists but I failed to find it. > > OK for mainline? > > Regards > > Paul > > > >