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 697FF38500A1; Sat, 10 Dec 2022 21:05:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 697FF38500A1
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670706326;
	bh=K+yO4+NFM465cFww2hI3X1HVn1IsGDZ6ifqgiQgl19w=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=IHw59tNR2EcgYc5m7rO3CW7LUGxPJzYo0ZDEKobBX6ViAqYV5Zv8DQVy+X9LSmvR+
	 2yiagaD7zt3TMhX/ailfdQ3RbRxc+aHdtAZIL7lM9EoJRXsBaKCY2JAyKFvHPTAqKH
	 S+M4OJSSk99CUTQGiluzoTfpWqu+GHETCs7gYxSk=
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/107995] ICE: Segmentation fault, without backtrace
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2022 21:05:26 +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: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107995-4-eraeFD3MOG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107995-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107995-4@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=3D107995

--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> -=
--
On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 07:37:06PM +0000, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> (In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> > This patch prevents the ICE.
>=20
> The patch is mostly good, but does not set the errmsg variable, which
> leads to garbage in the printed error message.
>=20
> We could do the following (haven't found a better one yet):
>=20

Don't see the point in complicating the patch as there
is at least one earlier error message.  But, since I
won't be committing a chnage, I certainly won't object
to your patch.=