From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (troutmask.apl.washington.edu [128.95.76.21]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A7B03858D28; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 22:19:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 3A7B03858D28 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=troutmask.apl.washington.edu Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=troutmask.apl.washington.edu Received: from troutmask.apl.washington.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 30PMJuTq075096 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:19:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 30PMJuf7075095; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:19:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 14:19:56 -0800 From: Steve Kargl To: Harald Anlauf via Fortran Cc: gcc-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fortran: fix ICE in check_host_association [PR108544] Message-ID: Reply-To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,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: On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 10:59:22PM +0100, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: > Dear all, > > the attached patch fixes two issues: first it addresses a NULL pointer > dereference on invalid input, triggered by the provided testcase. > > Second, while analyzing the context of the affected code, I looked into > the testcase for PR96102, and by varying it slightly, i.e. replacing > functions by subroutines I found that we accept invalid code that is > rejected by several other brands tested. To fix this, I removed one > line of a condition that did not seem to make sense to me. > > Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? > Yes. I briefly looked at this by simply commenting out the assert, which gives too many odd error messages. Returning 'false' seems to be best. -- Steve