From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B9F53858425; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 16:14:30 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 0B9F53858425 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmx.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmx.de DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1671812069; bh=l5exY1LBYusAVXwT+VVYMb50FtWJPpCw6vMpSkWpWbw=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=r87+tnJz41TuC/OO93ePr12QnhTT3z7LlnEoFfbE0RdF9jNmR08XGu9naolZZinIt +WEzHAuyJ8mosHaa8vVIQaCuj6fxf0eVFeCZQZcUxTkHhhiZe+quSyMjwMsEW6r79a BvM9XJpA53KmNZyAcXJz7eaZJYk+XHgzb5m9X7aYWHYxXZPdG2Kh/Nc9XR8KViRRP9 teoCGteSGD3CopQPHjh4SazzDi++sS/IODkQZP7kIR6fW26oNhfcnCbHgOP7WV+Vp7 5N1WTLd7Hb9txY/EDan1Q0pu8zq4Ge7xVwgmx9lzKbm35gcLGqfhtqmFiYUnkBganx rwhso7xPefttg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from [192.168.178.29] ([93.207.82.62]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MBm1U-1p16F71JrI-00CBXj; Fri, 23 Dec 2022 17:14:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 17:14:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Subject: *PING* [PATCH] Fortran: incorrect array bounds when bound intrinsic used in decl [PR108131] To: fortran , gcc-patches Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.patches,gmane.comp.gcc.fortran References: Content-Language: en-US From: Harald Anlauf In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:pfun7BeyvTh6looBmMQHUOHEgT8z97uLxMgrt8JeZ6zYSVbe75J uIHqT2jFxZFk6CwoOWlDQzdPDHc0XzYe2GFHotlKw5XJhMX4ebqgyNnqOMEXIjQp0FFTaBW xagmCt9gYt0GpN9T399BlEz0L0VLUh2vHCHJ1oqKy9es+tRrn/RzIeIdjIjq+JDqjIznYdt U2qZ9eNSgVfpMbZvXOyZA== UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:KHS+KU65IJc=;81X7x/Th5GfMPweCvZP1Vs8Rodj zE0i970ZpXvxrO0P2wlvsvIkd3yLhucaqaeVzTCEQfjb3MYIrUIDRqyy3ji2FpY/W5bxmw+2e Uq+UHUyAxsP5h7P6FfLUXZ7Leop2c0Zf0NrE7FYsGuIaRz5/Vtx02Yz5RYCf8uRj8HqdkO26H HxxUEALLOVerbBxAAtPwDUi7ce1rpuzXfb9vq9PqcjwMS0rDtzERZlcr1rnW63aI1o5Rp+scR U+9YcvRLGWZbe/sAOhpOQarywyVZ2WwoM9PNq0RIz3BM1Jx6G3aTBpHERhA9HmnqYzi8cPSSe 3JstGgXA7x+3I2WxvMul20pcKO/4rgGvxg3SMS4nyMvrbz2n1DduLeQnEEmF8M3JppAOE3uUp 6QnG/WlAC+uaeLnhbxB4cP38ZpgPmQx0tIRrOiM91HzWKD3nvPzwWx7usszjx/0ON68xa13Zn wjL2iewXxkHoAZDkmT+CFvjz5hnbAyx8T/3ZNssYNOIRYFI7NeAWFP7eoqIJwXzjEfKVFPYoO 2teXAVEstOJ0ULFCbMbliqqBMEi8bvo0qsvyvxKBL/YqDHbUh4ofxE+4HxNFFEJvQNTizDDYr YJ0+URjzNv+mZkFn5tgHBuO88yJpkRbmMaprl/ysd1Zre4GpHuhyozXHodAXJO7+BZZjfLFM6 X9i8+7WmRZYv/j3cbxlucPSjYS4F8s/NhLKKIiAF5M3bWMC6dDJrns3IJTLNFCm5OZAmYJLc8 JWUH0X2f2+HTQAF4GcFRFuBZ2DglQjUwroEXgMBH1bRq35KazKSQhF1SPRMG8ehi04qXbDYJn MA4tIzy9QQCibj17Jc1Y4TiUtZv9wkZkkfii3apkSFDNpavYm6ham75PATPCYqa3yKJ7nnsBz sJowX6wxqfMiAge5Ocjam8R4X1qHMMT5YxYrwz3CIczTB7CWAN6nf6T35htC7s7QtV9okp0Ol xgttV7XZI9Mj6oAaoEUtfJmQMUY= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,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: Am 17.12.22 um 22:21 schrieb Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches: > 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? > > As this is a 10/11/12/13 regression, I would like to backport > as seems fit. > > Thanks, > Harald >