Hi Harald,

It might be a simple patch but I have to confess it took a while for me to
get my head around the difference between gfc_is_not_contiguous and
!gfc_is_simply_contigous :-(

Yes, this is OK for mainline and, after a short delay, for 13-branch.

Thanks for the patch

Paul


On Sat, 16 Dec 2023 at 18:28, Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> the attached simple patch fixes a (9+) regression for passing
> to a CONTIGUOUS,TARGET dummy an *effective argument* that is
> contiguous, although the actual argument is not simply-contiguous
> (it is a pointer without the CONTIGOUS attribute in the PR).
>
> Since a previous attempt for a patch lead to regressions in
> gfortran.dg/bind-c-contiguous-3.f90, which is rather dense,
> I decided to enhance the current testcase with various
> combinations of actual and dummy arguments that allow to
> study whether a _gfortran_internal_pack is generated in
> places where we want to.  (_gfortran_internal_pack does not
> create a temporary when no packing is needed).
>
> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.  OK for mainline?
>
> I would like to backport this - after a grace period - to
> at least 13-branch.  Any objections here?
>
> Thanks,
> Harald
>
>