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 AAD39385AC37; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 21:44:10 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AAD39385AC37
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1666734250;
	bh=OHD0KNr7V66WSUdZZrMowCVYRKuMtcFh8nMtiIMXqU8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=WgSvZZgPx+h9dLZWdfIjq7oWKhvwH59TLlGUDw1wXhfJCZ3fVgXeiH27mC6R2ueMv
	 FjPOChmCe/xJ5LIn8MU8gqbLhF91tZVrwX+9/lh1deFirgj4gWZa9yDYFdxneToWGv
	 VSqAOwD15C+5/EnqOxIBIC5QUnhbSaXI3hesz9lI=
From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/103413] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE: Invalid
 expression in gfc_element_size since r10-2083-g8dc63166e0b85954
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 21:44:01 +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-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kargl 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: 10.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103413-4-cuSOKma3xS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103413-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103413-4@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=3D103413

--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #9)
> Steve,
>=20
> what do you think about the following patch?  Not yet fully regtested.
> It should fix the issue much simpler by checking type compatibility:
>=20
> diff --git a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
> index 6050359d521..f4052eb7042 100644
> --- a/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
> +++ b/gcc/fortran/symbol.cc
> @@ -5139,6 +5141,9 @@ gfc_type_compatible (gfc_typespec *ts1, gfc_typespec
> *ts2)
>    bool is_union1 =3D (ts1->type =3D=3D BT_UNION);
>    bool is_union2 =3D (ts2->type =3D=3D BT_UNION);
>=20=20
> +  if (ts2->type =3D=3D BT_BOZ)
> +    return (ts1->type =3D=3D BT_INTEGER || ts1->type =3D=3D BT_REAL);
> +
>    if (is_class1
>        && ts1->u.derived->components
>        && ((ts1->u.derived->attr.is_class
>=20
> Do you have a testcase that exercises BT_INTEGER and BT_REAL here?
> I thought that one of the pathes that reaches gfc_boz2int and gfc_boz2real
> might need the above.

Well, a boz is typeless, so it cannot be compatible with any other type.
So, I would assume, you could do=20

if (ts1->type =3D=3D BT_BOZ || ts2->type =3D=3D BT_BOZ)
   return false;

There is a caveat in that Fortran 2023 is going to allow
things like

    real :: x =3D z'1234'

if gfc_type_compatible is used in simple assignments, gfortran will
need to deal with that.=