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 471DD3858D33; Tue, 20 Jun 2023 15:47:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 471DD3858D33
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1687276065;
	bh=82O5n2ZCmJWryWcPX9SisW7zzmXCFAACAWEw+T0PC/Q=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Ai1CZTCJ3jTW4bHupKwMc0lzw4MnNd+yG/14Yf7+FoksKiFhk+TCovjEv0rzBvdIV
	 X3EPyeNltS+j1dEVCdCwQCpD172dRuZyAwLYTko3qYlMxRds17U/7NiTCu///gKgGH
	 8jTIc2WXeleHdVNlqb9Za4QIGd3XCYeiWuvYhW1I=
From: "pault at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/110224] Rejects valid: function reference with data
 pointer result as lhs in assignment
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 15:47:45 +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: 13.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
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: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110224-4-eKohJhNHBy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110224-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110224-4@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=3D110224

--- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas <pault at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Hi Neil,

> I actually didn't originally try that commented-out assignment with nagfo=
r,
> but confirm that it gets it wrong as you said. I'll give you the honor of
> submitting a bug report.

Will do!

>=20
> nagfor does get the ASSOCIATE part correct, which was what I was what I w=
as
> after in the first place when I encountered this bug.

In your gfortran-bugs, I think that the following are the associate bugs:
gfortran-20230529.f90 Still doesn't identify co-array associate name
gfortran-20220127.f90 ICE in verify_gimple
gfortran-20171124a.f90 <=3D compiles and runs correctly from 8-branch to tr=
unk
gfortran-20160821.f90                -ditto-

(i) Have I got the lot?
(ii) Are there existing PRs for the two most recent?

Regards and thanks for your support

Paul=