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 825A6385841E; Sat, 10 Jun 2023 13:21:45 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 825A6385841E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1686403305;
	bh=e/i4KW6DT9m/iE2RocYCg/PBPaeZWIrzDBJCfT4BMJI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=s5u5g2wCPsYOvPoTuAKk/MkDx6q1hd32dgI2rbvZpKhvGAHrLtlhxKqo6pJCNIo7x
	 8JJAzupBT9FQfwyoWjRn6csLg2zlj57iSjWVPUjUPVwasi38TXaaWaVEhZzku679Iq
	 LL5NDtk5lQx1QG2EAhxJFPcd1y+XUKRdx6Hw+OXg=
From: "anlauf 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: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 13:21:45 +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: anlauf 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-GLWbOoUKta@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 #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #12)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)=20
> > Enabling derived types does not work when they occur in an array constr=
uctor,
> > and the code would ICE on empty constructors of derived type.
> >=20
>=20
> Looking at the code, I couldn't foresee where the ICE would happen, so I
> tried it myself.
> I see no ICE here.

I got an ICE with pointer_check_14.f90 and realloc_on_assign_18.f90
which have an empty DT with no component.

I guess it's all about zeros...=