From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29922 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2012 12:31:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 29909 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jul 2012 12:31:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:30:59 +0000 From: "mikael at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/45586] [4.8 Regression] ICE non-trivial conversion at assignment Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:31:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code, lto, wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg02143.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45586 --- Comment #73 from Mikael Morin 2012-07-30 12:29:33 UTC --- (In reply to comment #72) > > (In reply to comment #63) > > > That's bogus as TYPE_FIELDS > > > is supposed to be shared amongst variant types. > > > > Then we'll have to revert Micha's recursive restrict work. > > I don't think so, it merely has to be fixed. How so? by making it non-recursive? For variable to be type compatible for assignment, they shall be variants of the same type, and thus have the same TYPE_FIELDS. If they shall have the same TYPE_FIELDS, they shall have the same components, the same components have the same types, so that one cannot be restrict qualified. > > > Is it possible for the front-end to specify alias sets by hand (I mean without > > relying on the middle-end computing them based on types etc)? > > Yes. But that does not work with LTO, You mean calling the front-end's code does not work at LTO time or the alias sets are not saved/restored for LTO? > nor does it address the original > issue of supporting INTENT IN/OUT properly. Ah? Isn't a restricted type variable (resp. component, etc) merely one that has its own alias set? So if it works with restrict, it works with alias sets?