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 679DD3858D33; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 21:53:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 679DD3858D33 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 (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 36GLr2Al024502 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:53:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu) Received: (from sgk@localhost) by troutmask.apl.washington.edu (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 36GLr22r024501; Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:53:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sgk) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 14:53:02 -0700 From: Steve Kargl To: Harald Anlauf via Fortran Cc: gcc-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fortran: intrinsics and deferred-length character arguments [PR95947,PR110658] 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=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 10:30:59PM +0200, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote: > Dear all, > > some intrinsics may return character results with the same > characteristics as their first argument (e.g. PACK, MINVAL, ...). > If the first argument is of deferred-length, we need to derive > the character length of the result from the first argument, like > in the assumed-length case, but we must not handle it as > deferred-length, as that has a different argument passing > convention. > > The attached - almost trivial and obvious - patch fixes that. > > Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for mainline? > > As this is a rather simple fix for a wrong-code bug, I would > like to backport this at least to 13-branch, unless there > are major concerns. > OK for trunk and backports. -- Steve