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 442963858D35; Sat, 10 Jun 2023 10:40:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 442963858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1686393623;
	bh=zXpdN2yzUALgJDLIcU+FKhkvspaNpTa6NTFtQ0byQ6k=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=yO/HCHhzwLxZyLJm8aDDJDb2dYQYRLzgdkKSIEW2qNOj/HnaH8wq4cJSQUAV5ENxS
	 w517EzeXREjSawRgmTFP+x6/I8KED4cmnc75lqPzXA+WHKwjn2y57jfgeWkPvwjXKc
	 YrkIIQyY0LRCD3XgQaa3CAdRpQVfhyoRWDLCbEiM=
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: Sat, 10 Jun 2023 10:40:22 +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-gJEUIlEWwF@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 #11 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #9)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> >=20
> > I haven't understood yet how (and why) temporaries are generated for
> > procedure arguments even when it is known at compile-time that these ha=
ve
> > size zero.  I'd appreciate input from others.
>=20
> See trans_array_constructor.

Actually, your patch is already touching that function.
I'm afraid this is an area nobody (well, nobody but you) dares touching.=