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 0E5A73857C7C; Wed,  5 Oct 2022 21:20:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0E5A73857C7C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665004848;
	bh=Ii4VNhWvomKwym7bwUx4TrsYkkI6It9EMdO1gekWSxc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=XsVEqMd8netKR3Of4Mn2Z/n9vDKUVDvgq+K5Ldg8DPykLR7g4I/o986mkzCesjg0o
	 38FTOQDhb2n4auslE6udLWxlfIsxSIHZKH77Hn+brP0GJfcduQiGRjmi4C03YcNwkc
	 7TnJ4g2qDWXut2ce9SzjOfUGIHyjLkbSL8K5n1ZU=
From: "anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/107000] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at
 fortran/arith.cc:2243
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 21:20:47 +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: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107000-4-d3qum8HhKP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107000-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107000-4@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=3D107000

--- Comment #23 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #22)
> In looking at the patch, there is a=20
>=20
>    gcc_assert (op1->ts.type !=3D BT_UNKNOWN);
>=20
> in reduce_binary_ac() near line 1334 and
>=20
>    gcc_assert (op2->ts.type !=3D BT_UNKNOWN);
>=20
> in reduce_binary_ca() near line 1386 that
> I think can go away.

You're probably right, although I'm not entirely sure that there is a
corner case that we haven't covered yet...

I think it doesn't really harm to leave it there for now.
Gerhard will tell (fingers crossed...).=