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 AC21D3857354; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:46:30 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org AC21D3857354
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1664567192;
	bh=VLDJjK8IiEd1FlgTipxp/cl7YuI0mDTa3QXIqnmjcAs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Mg6k1JkDJxfVEEFPDqdK2TWc3LtntIOUZF31nkwRxbwlfv3VpXqZ9YUqaPFVzL8n9
	 65l2Pt2E8Wg3+VpUKjGDQ+jh54iIb8CVu0Td40bQMtVPDcTEYdRnXgsGAoq3bAHVth
	 ayQDDB/J1tGKR7bafV3L7gD253M6OvUKJZ3GxS4s=
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: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 19:46:24 +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: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107000-4-hDmeksOcBF@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 #14 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #13)
> 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.
>=20
> With the guarding check above, it is safe, with the assumption that eleme=
nts
> of an array have the same type as the array itself.  If that condition is
> not true, well, it doesn't work obviously.
>=20
> I don't see right now where an additional check would fit well, but the f=
ix
> doesn't belong to walk_array_constructor in any case from my point of vie=
w.

We could walk through the elements of each array passed to reduce_binary
and check the types of the elements there, or do this check in a somewhat
more clever way than in the patch attached to comment#3.

This patch tried to perform checks in reduce_binary_ac, but I was not happy
with that particular implementation.

When looping over the elements, we currently have

      gfc_simplify_expr (c->expr, 0);

      if (c->expr->expr_type =3D=3D EXPR_CONSTANT)
        rc =3D eval (c->expr, op2, &r);
      else
        rc =3D reduce_binary_ac (eval, c->expr, op2, &r);

and do not handle the case that c->expr->ts.type =3D=3D BT_UNKNOWN.
Should we return sth. like rc =3D ARITH_INCOMMENSURATE, except that it is
not array .op. array?=