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 D0C6E3858CDB; Sat, 18 May 2024 08:09:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D0C6E3858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1716019746;
	bh=MhwqNd+vDIG1A4DJ/NgKwbArLK7fru1z6+TSD/vOHSk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=tQY1ycxI8TyJsMs6Y6jcCk3pVUkdielpKRDSGhfz1OpPFhBLO3eCxPrqKPIWLrQtC
	 ns4Cev6v4OuJlkYcDO8zu2OupLZS7B6riQjUJcJOqfUfVtMt3hHCSt+LMkcam3+fEp
	 6vy0xx8sWfDFuxZ/IZZgTi3z3RpOeykm8QWKBnaE=
From: "pault at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/103312] [11/12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in
 gfc_find_component since r9-1098-g3cf89a7b992d483e
Date: Sat, 18 May 2024 08:09:03 +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: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103312-4-2fRzWAZIeg@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103312-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103312-4@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=3D103312

--- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #7)
> Created attachment 58231 [details]
> Preliminary fix for this PR
>=20
> I went back to the beginning on this problem, having realised that it is =
far
> too early to resolve the compcall of a class argument in
> gfc_reduce_init_expr. Hence the chunk in expr.cc. The second chunk is
> (possibly) a bit of a kludge and, I would have thought, should be checked,
> at very least by checking that the class extends an abstract type. I will
> come back to this - yard duty calls!
>=20
> A reduced test case, without the module 'example' and no type extension a=
lso
> failed and is now fixed. Also failing in this reduced testcase was:
>     function func (this) result (string)
>       class(bar) :: this
>       character (:), allocatable :: string
>       allocate (character(this%size()) :: string)
>       string =3D repeat ("x", len (string))
>     end function
>=20
> Again, this is fixed.
>=20
> Finally, the patch even regression tests OK :-)
>=20
> Enough for now.
>=20
> Paul

I just noticed that the version on my tree has expr guarded in the addition=
al
condition in gfc_reduce_init_expr. Otherwise gfortran.dg/pr103588.f90
segfaults.

Paul=