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 E12C33858412; Tue, 18 Jul 2023 20:22:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E12C33858412
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1689711765;
	bh=/YycaCPHYGOzWNgCZiLzGsnO2O6kA4Kf4n4RTeDFd4w=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=lX/WOcnWIl9Z7DrwG916n+psNXgbB/AvYINqK511zu3VhiFyTGTm5O2iBRLmXACf3
	 L9LZW2GAcyteOk1ZxyNdWvbYIiDdo0XOmf/D/beRtI6hM4HOFd7vkgQiJHKNk8hEzv
	 7UDzSvWm8OQoejwyK9DGltweQEFuO8KmNOMMD/qg=
From: "anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/110720] [13 Regression] Internal compiler error
 (segmentation fault) in gfc_expression_rank
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 20:22:45 +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: 13.1.1
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110720-4-KW0oJtu3QU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110720-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110720-4@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=3D110720

--- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #2)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #1)
> > Looks like a dup of pr109948, which is fixed on 14-trunk.
> >=20
> > @Paul: do you think your patch (commit r14-1487-g3c2eba4) is
> > backportable to 13-branch?
>=20
> I know that it is :-)
>=20
> I'll propose a backport to the list unless you want to OK it here?

I don't remember any regressions from the fix on mainline, so OK from me.
Let's fix this issue in time before 13.2 comes out...

:-)=