[Bug fortran/65187] New: Bogus error with ASSOCIATE and deferred-length CHARACTER

[Bug fortran/65187] New: Bogus error with ASSOCIATE and deferred-length CHARACTER

[burnus at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65187

            Bug ID: 65187
           Summary: Bogus error with ASSOCIATE and deferred-length
                    CHARACTER
           Product: gcc
           Version: 5.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: rejects-valid
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: fortran
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org

Found at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.fortran/AxqHqIavLwA

The following is rejected with

    asc: associate ( s => foo )
                             1
Error: Entity ‘s’ at (1) has a deferred type parameter and requires either the
pointer or allocatable attribute


program p
   implicit none
   character(len=:), allocatable :: foo
   foo = "Hello World!"
   asc: associate ( s => foo )
      print *, " foo says ", s
      blk: block
         print *, " foo says ", s
      end block blk
   end associate asc
   stop
end program p
>From gcc-bugs-return-478261-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Tue Feb 24 08:47:02 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-478261-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 53874 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2015 08:47:02 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 53815 invoked by uid 48); 24 Feb 2015 08:46:58 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/63890] [4.9/5 regression] Compiling trivial program with -O -p leads to misaligned stack
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 09:22:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-63890-4-n8faGCUNTz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63890-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63890-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg02593.txt.bz2
Content-length: 885

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idc890

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

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

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I guess the question is, do we guarantee the standard stack alignment for the
_mcount call or not?  In any case, this call is very special, has different
calling conventions than other functions, and sometimes (e.g. for fentry) is
performed before the prologue, so even less likely to have aligned stack.
So, do we want any stack guarantees for mcount and/or fentry on Linux?
Similarly other OSes.  Aligning stack in the callers can be of course done, but
isn't without code size and performance implications.

[Bug fortran/65187] Bogus error with ASSOCIATE and deferred-length CHARACTER

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65187

Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres <dominiq at lps dot ens.fr> ---
It looks like a duplicate of pr60458.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 60458 ***