From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9DB1F3858D34; Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:19:15 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9DB1F3858D34 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1714497555; bh=arV4aDSu7J7Lwo+BpyjzLcWXsunniAu711XqbxtNBtU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=TdTsBcJli7eGYZhM/I0t8h1t3b0/8XTTWbV+jeh9J0PuAT433mqSkXEUG3JP01+Qj E4QuTwcrO2OHPVrFQu2ogt+pJsbjSqMQ3n5lsWQZUVAL60xWpsgn1LjnqBkefwklIx XFp33BAHFHN5CYwVjFTSl6TlVC3PE+9cQR04fDyM= From: "pault at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/114874] [14/15 Regression] ICE with select type, type is (character(*)), and substring Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:19:15 +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: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pault at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D114874 --- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #3) > Adding Paul, hoping that he can tell what changed for SELECT TYPE recentl= y. Needless to say, the regression is caused by r14-9489. I have a fix that regtests OK but causes a regression in an, as yet, untest= ed corner: subroutine foobar type :: t integer :: i end type class(*), allocatable :: c c =3D t (1) select type (c) type is (t) if (c(1)%i .ne. 1) stop 5 ! This now ICEs end select end My efforts have been interrupted by a failure of make-install, which seems = to happen every few months. I rather think that I should go back to magnetic drives, rather than SSD. It will now have to wait until tomorrow. Paul=