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 64BD63856DC3; Wed, 10 May 2023 21:40:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 64BD63856DC3
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683754845;
	bh=aBtPlXOHwrnpMpDd7xicRpTuQa9SsZCLlRbDksFse5U=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Z2M7CGaUhUcDs3aNImB37Yi7BjyDul8wLvs95qOPpfotk0eTN37fqbw+M4R8m1V2M
	 v9KBLOrJ1eJVSu80OZ0Thc3Q7LabaVn5SJ5lF+xd86xWypfy8GEJpxlkBW+7q4iOug
	 EbtEK4IUWp0YBbzS/y1bQK2lugKvS8+6Pt9+x8To=
From: "anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/109788] [14 Regression] gcc/hwint.h:293:61: runtime
 error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int
 since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 21:40:45 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109788-4-yMdijcdI4x@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109788-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109788-4@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=3D109788

--- Comment #10 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can you tell whether you see other intrinsics with bad FUNCTION_TYPE?
E.g. if we have a similar issue with pack_char or pack_s_char?

In that case I have a vague idea why it happens, but do not yet know how
to solve this.

Regarding the prototype fix: would it be ok if we add an
__attribute__((unused))
to the affected-but-unused arguments, as that is already there for the
actual implementation?  And would that make a difference for the ABI?=