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 05F543858D33; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:25:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 05F543858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681925121;
	bh=u3wdlawVBeCCMR8ZO++7rWjJ6ZolzIr6S8aTruKb5R4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=pZuhEmYD4KgkwuvkCIu5l9mkQ5vfQyABdWVJww9goxSVRS3WxvhaTD9qWcfLoSJOj
	 mDzXy00aNp0z8eBbCapLj8AMuJ6wK898e1+5tZUwxDHsl9FzWOoMS3i2I6jnWhj86Z
	 d3hbY+eZC4u6uCnDKxIScrCG4W5oGm4tOKiYUEBs=
From: "leandro.lupori at linaro dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/109500] SIGABRT when calling a function that returns an
 unallocated value
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 17:25:20 +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: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid, diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: leandro.lupori at linaro dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P5
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109500-4-sLwHNY7Ix5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109500-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109500-4@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=3D109500

--- Comment #12 from Leandro Lupori <leandro.lupori at linaro dot org> ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #11)
> Do you have anybody else supporting the view that the code in question
> should work as an extension?
>=20

I know there is some usage of this extension, in code similar to this (usin=
g a
function result as an allocatable argument), as it works with gfortran and
ifort (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/60226).

Its inclusion in flang (with a portability warning) is being analyzed:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D147614

However, the main motivation was to improve compatibility with other compil=
ers,
such as gfortran and ifort.

I'm trying to check with the issue reporter how extensive is his usage of t=
his
extension and how much effort it would require for him to avoid using it.=