From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 23EE53858D38; Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:38:17 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 23EE53858D38
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1686566297;
	bh=sE8hC9iwis0x6qxswjP8h0GbP1ZJh2ll5XFzU6Mwl2s=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=C7rSrEHK8pSS+aNg/koA1laWBbJJIjGEq/txuEahXLEBTJEGmFwgLyVYVCHYs5A74
	 XJyApN48gw5C8bv7OqRopr1HKqNtgSU7sGut0QVvu8IsJ0rg9kdAaxgVFXBd9RN+5e
	 qd4v1SGv60v0TUCSQy2iCEpRVLHhDkfJ2cfQEsSs=
From: "mikael at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/86277] Presence of optional arguments not recognized
 for zero length arrays
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:38:15 +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: 8.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-86277-4-Bby91htJho@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-86277-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-86277-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D86277

--- Comment #25 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #23)
> >=20
> > This regresses on pr108065.f90 (that's a few extra analyzer warnings),
> > and on pr69955.f90 (that's one extra __builtin_malloc).
>=20
> This removes the regressions.  Not fully retested again.
>=20
Comment #23 is probably the more correct one.
Comment #24 works because of the double temporary.  Even if the first tempo=
rary
has NULL data component, the second one uses malloc unconditionally to set
data, and the argument is seen as present.=