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 8F7E43858C50; Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:03:36 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8F7E43858C50
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681938216;
	bh=6ItX95DgjIzJ+vXoripCrnbvXrlNiOmJ555tYV2BsR8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=r6/uMW+iZJu8RksKT0Suj+kQQz5RNVDryCmsmlhc2K+/0ozpyQZQSOPJyk+4psIEx
	 VLxGE4JZvK0hmIZ8ShngLX8PcJwSd8snjp309Kwk/ghIcBpgOUrsciCyAS29DforI5
	 TLTsLG/4k0KhKnKbbYkoTr3HWbNmbywrJSSCo5AM=
From: "anlauf at gcc dot gnu.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 21:03:36 +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: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.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-znSsIzBKhl@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 #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #16)
> First, note, 'allocated(f())' throws an error.

Agree.

> Now, with the original code,
>=20
>       is_allocated(f())
>=20
> The function reference is evaluated, and then the function result
> (aka it's value) is argument associated with an allocatable dummy
> argument.  This is technically wrong as the actual argument (aka
> value returned by the function reference) should not have the
> allocatable attribute.

Agree.  See also the discussion on the J3 mailing list.

> I'll repeat.  The actual argument is the value resulting from
> the function reference.  The "shall" in "shall be allocatable"
> applies to something the programmer must ensure.

Agree.

> If we go back to the original code and modify to allocate
> f by say doing 'f =3D 42' in f(), gfortran produces=20
>=20
> % gfcx -o z -Wall a.f90 && ./z
>  T
>=20
> This is the problem.  Yes, f is allocated and assigned=20
> 42.  The printed 'T' is bogus because 42 is value of
> the function.  42 is no allocatable.

Agree again.

The point is that there is a bug in gfortran which currently effectively
generates code which resembles

  integer, allocatable :: p
  p =3D f()
  print *, is_allocated(p)
  deallocate (p)

(of course with a temporary for the function result).
The technical reason for the crash is the copying of the function (non)resu=
lt.

The patch in comment#9 rejects all related misuses.

Given the lengthy thread on the J3 mailing list, I am wondering whether the=
re
ever was an explicit IR on the issue, or was it considered so obvious that
the clarification was deferred to the F2018 document.



> One place to possibly check for an error is when=20
> gfortran resolves argument association.  If a dummy
> argument is allocatable, the actual argument needs=20
> to be allocatable and cannot not also be a function
> result variable.=