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 B00DD3858C2C; Sun, 27 Nov 2022 21:24:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B00DD3858C2C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1669584297;
	bh=JKNT3oG9VLTTmRJWB/8ErugVgyczba8jDyDgO+2xQKw=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=GagYmppyuZHPOKK2J8OnqNRPneTv6QgnrFboIym9HditLpxMsFXR1JARvb+ny4Ktm
	 riUqRXEVlT6G+V3nreRM0BonpVoqgju2Vl5WnNmaWN2g/Ji1Y141WuSPP8a+ki6/GC
	 9Hzo4d0gpNhzE/JmEssU6Gk1Z9qfxwJEJqSfUrWc=
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/107874] merge not using all its arguments
Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2022 21:24:57 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
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-107874-4-mttHDoEHoK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107874-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107874-4@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=3D107874

--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> -=
--
On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 08:00:35PM +0000, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107874
>=20
> --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #2)
> > Harald, you are likely right the patch can be moved down.  I'll program=
med
> > up the example from the Fortran 2018 standard, which works as expected.=
  So,
> > there is definitely something about a scalar mask choosing the actual
> > argument before both are evaluated.
> >=20
> >    program foo
>=20
> Steve,
>=20
> this example from the standard seems to be working down to 7.5 for me.
> Am I missing something?  Do we need this in the testsuite?

You are not missing anything.  I wanted an example that works
with or without the patch John included, so that we don't=20
accidently introduce a regression.

> I'd say it's rather the following two lines replacing the loop in the
> reproducer in comment#0:
>=20
>   print *, merge(tstuff(),fstuff(),.true.)
>   print *, merge(tstuff(),fstuff(),.false.)
>=20
> This is mis-simplified in simplify.cc:4909

Good find!  This may indeed be a source of the issue.=