public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "mikael 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: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 12:45:30 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-107000-4-fnMPD8OXxM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-107000-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107000 Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mikael at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Here is my understanding of the problem. There is a check on operand types in eval_intrinsic guarding numerical evaluation: 1573 case INTRINSIC_PLUS: 1574 case INTRINSIC_MINUS: 1575 case INTRINSIC_TIMES: 1576 case INTRINSIC_DIVIDE: 1577 case INTRINSIC_POWER: 1578 if (!gfc_numeric_ts (&op1->ts) || !gfc_numeric_ts (&op2->ts)) 1579 goto runtime; If we pass this check, we proceed to reduce_binary, where if one (or both) of the operands is an array, we do numerical evaluation for every element of the array. With the guarding check above, it is safe, with the assumption that elements of an array have the same type as the array itself. If that condition is not true, well, it doesn't work obviously. I don't see right now where an additional check would fit well, but the fix doesn't belong to walk_array_constructor in any case from my point of view.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-30 12:45 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-09-21 17:33 [Bug fortran/107000] New: " gscfq@t-online.de 2022-09-21 17:34 ` [Bug fortran/107000] " gscfq@t-online.de 2022-09-21 18:58 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-21 19:44 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-24 16:30 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-26 20:38 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-26 21:37 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2022-09-27 19:32 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-28 18:22 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-28 18:55 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-29 19:57 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-29 20:10 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2022-09-29 21:13 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2022-09-30 12:45 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2022-09-30 19:46 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-09-30 20:26 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2022-10-02 20:05 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-02 20:58 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-03 10:05 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-03 10:14 ` mikael at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-03 19:36 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-04 21:20 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-05 16:10 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2022-10-05 21:20 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-10-08 20:27 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-02 19:11 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-107000-4-fnMPD8OXxM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).