From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 2F6783858401; Thu,  1 Jun 2023 14:19:06 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2F6783858401
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685629146;
	bh=MH6HQBvCRjvmocVzs9PEhOv20MyWyMD5UDOcxTfjfyQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ka8KX+LTBgHU1cuCUPxu9t821T576c6EpK6hfyNmaLoM54DNXhbcrhGOsk+Kw2mh7
	 0WYMpcgg6KgSgUUgp5Zxrefu6q7MIyTQLrr0nXlWCRtk5D1UidH7b/gwUw1o5RK3FV
	 1dkYzKhCHxde8PHJHKOgE2rJaWcLTBtHmS1qOqoc=
From: "pault at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/100094] Undefined pointers have incorrect rank when
 using optimization
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 14:19:05 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status blocked
Message-ID: <bug-100094-4-cLoFmzeKX0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100094-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100094-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100094

Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |WAITING
             Blocks|87477                       |

--- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hi Jose,

This seems to me to have fixed itself.

I'll put the PR to "waiting" until you confirm (or not!).

I have also stopped it from blocking the associate meta-bug 87477.

Thanks

Paul


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D87477
[Bug 87477] [meta-bug] [F03] issues concerning the ASSOCIATE statement=