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 B87DE3858C32; Tue,  2 Apr 2024 13:32:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B87DE3858C32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1712064779;
	bh=bxtBCM6oLace97SQPQhFX2dh1VamDtS1JTVVlUvOhbQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=rI3Rp7PbPZu/zAdPn+ok8HYXusJTQJjM38bMjoYZ2XttN2JnLqQpVRryH5iADJIle
	 evJDnFkIz4rCLdRBiUTlWdjBsKRY8rJT6bDKimEwbVEPRpzZyn/6/CaG0LPNWRolGb
	 LTgs5xITZUFN3QYsCisg/GmXjGvG+AGW6SmEFgUQ=
From: "paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/106987] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in
 simplify_intrinsic_op, at fortran/expr.cc:1305
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 13:32:58 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106987-4-b4qzwWpQ1k@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106987-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106987-4@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=3D106987

--- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com <paul.richard.thom=
as at gmail dot com> ---
Hi Harald,

I will have a stab at backporting r14-1629 later this afternoon and will
let you know what happens. I am just rebuilding after applying the fix for
pr112407 (yes, I did add -std=3Df2008 :-) ).

I don't think that there is any point in going back to 12-branch at this
point in the release cycle.

Cheers

Paul




On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 at 21:42, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org <
gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106987
>
> anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
>
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
>              Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
>
> --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5)
> > Hi Harald,
> >
> > I am pinning this one on you since it needs backporting to 13-branch, at
> > least. It also keeps the audit trail clean.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> this one is at the top of my backport list.
>
> It depends on backporting r14-8902 (mine), and has weak conflict if
> r14-1629 (yours) is not backported, as testcase gfortran.dg/pr99350.f90
> was introduced in that commit.
>
> I could amend backporting the fix for the current PR as well as r14-8902
> to 13-branch by removing the changes to pr99350.f90 from the backport.
> That is likely the most simple solution, as backporting r14-1629 might
> introduce regressions.
>
> Nevertheless, the current fixes can only be backported to 13-branch,
> as some of the infrastructure changes for better error recovery after
> arithmetic errors and when array ctors are involved are to risky to
> backport to 12-branch.
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.=