From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-487865-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 9984 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2015 18:41:57 -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
Received: (qmail 9930 invoked by uid 48); 2 Jun 2015 18:41:54 -0000
From: "kargl at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/66377] [F95] Wrong-code with equivalenced array in module
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2015 18:41:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-66377-4-ocvTWlXaOK@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66377-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66377-4@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: 2015-06/txt/msg00197.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66377

kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

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

--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here's a slightly different testcase, which works as expected.

module constant
  integer x1, x2, y1, y2
  equivalence (y1,x1), (x2,y2)
end module

program test
  use constant
  y1 = 1
  x2 = 2
  call another()
contains
  subroutine another()
    use constant, only : x1, y2
    if (x1 /= 1 .or. x2 /= 2) call abort
  end subroutine
end program

Thus, there is something about the "arrayness" of x in
the original testcase that matters.  Off-by-one maybe?