From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-352022-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14299 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2011 13:05:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 14287 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Mar 2011 13:05:13 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_JV
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, 31 Mar 2011 13:05:06 +0000
From: "jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/48360] [4.6/4.7 Regression] ICE on array assignment statement with allocatable LHS
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-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-48360-4-sxDLB84gBI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48360-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48360-4@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
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:25:00 -0000
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: 2011-03/txt/msg03335.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48360

Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jvdelisle at gcc dot
                   |                            |gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-31 13:05:01 UTC ---
I am a little suspicious of this:

 static int count_arglist;

+/* Pointer to an array of gfc_expr ** we operate on, plus its size
+   and counter.  */
+
+static gfc_expr ***expr_array;
+static int expr_size, expr_count;


It could be getting walked on or optimized away by the optimizers.  Is there
another way to do this that is less indirect or relies less on static.

Just seems too tricky.  I am not looking further on this one.