From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 03A7A3858D3C; Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:36:32 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 03A7A3858D3C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1666038993; bh=GzI6tqmufN3QmNuwuU95kBUkjQpnXB6vr5H1f0/6NGA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=koFU69TPSuueWjB1UNqMUdk4Vt+JSbPv9fE6zB1dllM6i/pkKV3kj0BxlkdKJAmng GFkLRsQF3INxc3UDn4a1YU9zWSTKTJcOiZICLT6nf05hJx3qzFJmeqpFmsinExZxvO jBcqOnA0EoYi3jeCGlsTj679j+r3hiYFeDk19aM0= From: "anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/87659] Memory corruption in array component of intent(in) unlimited polymorphic with optimization Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 20:36:32 +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: 8.2.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: DUPLICATE 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 bug_status resolution Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D87659 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #4) > Adding several known-to-work/known-to-fail versions. >=20 > Possibly fixed by one of Jose's patches that was recently committed and > backported down to 10. (Could it be a dup of pr100132?) Yep, reverting that patch re-introduces the bug. Marking as dup. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 100132 ***=