From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-369101-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26987 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2011 15:50:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 26977 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2011 15:50:47 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
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; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:50:31 +0000
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/47023] [4.6/4.7 regression] C_Sizeof: Rejects valid code
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:52:00 -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: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-47023-4-DE8mQL7f6u@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47023-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47023-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg02278.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47023

--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-29 15:49:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> This patch itself doesn't do anything wrong AFAICS, it rather seems to expose
> an underlying bug: Either we need to set the 'is_c_interop' flag correctly or
> loosen the checks in verify_c_interop.

I think the latter. I think one can allow all intrinsic types. However, one
needs to be careful with characters: kind=4 is not interoperable and, e.g., for
dummies only len=1 is allowed (while via storage association, c_char_"string"
is a valid argument for a "character(len=1,kind=c_char) :: dummy(*)").

Note, additionally, that setting attr.is_c_interop is kind of difficult for
0.0_c_int ...