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 04A12385783F; Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:17:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 04A12385783F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681809461;
	bh=BIOqhfYpwUDIC21MHTTj/ML+JtgMSKy14M7Mlo4lpf0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Pm4qfw26NDOfVBWzyDXbuZvh1hgOwlCByd9Wt+S9PCYbBruBwIghn44MI8hyKjsMI
	 Azq0X5i1CsfdwqyLuOpB5l2TcSx6BUl5c6XQxyOw6eagvATe+KSlCOUbVXZhnPso/+
	 n2j+pLDJFNgN4X80XmFOaHxJXEaurdR8MG7JQ/vM=
From: "pault at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/108961] Segfault when associating to pointer from
 C_F_POINTER
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:17:40 +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: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pault at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: blocked assigned_to
Message-ID: <bug-108961-4-2Orh3abaoA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108961-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108961-4@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=3D108961

Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|87477                       |
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |pault at gcc dot gn=
u.org

--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Since this has nothing to do with the associate construct, I have removed t=
he
blocking of PR87477.

That said, I am onto it :-) I cannot see anything untoward with the produced
code at the moment and, since there is the dependence on whether or not the
subroutine is in a module, I can only surmise that there is some subtle
difference in memory usage.

Paul


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D87477
[Bug 87477] [meta-bug] [F03] issues concerning the ASSOCIATE statement=