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 14326385841D; Mon,  3 Jan 2022 11:55:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 14326385841D
From: "pault at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/103366] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in
 gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc, at fortran/trans-expr.c:5647
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 11:55:43 +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-checking, 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: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 9.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103366-4-1lJZtJbOm0@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103366-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103366-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 11:55:43 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103366

--- Comment #5 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4)
> (In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #1)
> > > > Started with r9-5372-gbbf18dc5d248a79a.
> > >=20
> > > Are you sure?
> >=20
> > Yes, I am.
> >=20
> > > Because the reporter said this:
> > > > This changed between 20211017 and 20211024 :
> >=20
> > It's true with disabled checking.
>=20
> ifort 2021.1 Beta 20201112 gives:
> ../pr103366/pr103366.f90(8): error #8769: If the actual argument is
> unlimited polymorphic, the corresponding dummy argument must also be
> unlimited polymorphic.   [X]
>       call s(x)
> -------------^
> ../pr103366/pr103366.f90(8): error #8788: This assumed-size or
> nonallocatable nonpointer assumed-rank array is an actual argument
> corresponding to an INTENT(OUT) assumed-rank array dummy so it cannot be
> polymorphic, finalizable, have an allocatable ultimate component, or have
> default initialization.   [X]
>       call s(x)
> -------------^
> compilation aborted for ../pr103366/pr103366.f90 (code 1)
>=20
> Paul

>>From F2017: 15.5.2.5
The actual argument shall be polymorphic if and only if the associated dummy
argument is polymorphic, and either both the actual and dummy arguments sha=
ll
be unlimited polymorphic, or the declared type of the actual argument shall=
 be
the same as the declared type of the dummy argument.

As yet, I have not found the constraints leading to the second error.

Cheers

Paul=