[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

[anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993

anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The testcase in comment#0 compiles for me with today's master.
Has this been fixed accidentally?  Maybe someone can bisect
so that one can identify the commit that might be backported
to fix the regression.

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

[anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993

--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> The testcase in comment#0 compiles for me with today's master.

Read: does not ICE; just gives an appropriate error message:

z1.f90:8:6:

    8 |       function f(x)
      |      1
Error: Interface mismatch in global procedure 'f' at (1): POINTER attribute
mismatch in function result

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] ICE in  |[8/9 Regression] ICE in
                   |maybe_canonicalize_comparis |maybe_canonicalize_comparis
                   |on_1, at fold-const.c:8845  |on_1, at fold-const.c:8845

--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> The testcase in comment#0 compiles for me with today's master.
> Has this been fixed accidentally?  Maybe someone can bisect
> so that one can identify the commit that might be backported
> to fix the regression.

This probably was

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2298af0800b292f028298c1eaec42fd3033c4b9b

the fix for PR94090.

I think this is something that could be backported.

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993

--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
<markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5dc3986103d8908c802e940dea8f2def3a6989c2

commit r11-1066-g5dc3986103d8908c802e940dea8f2def3a6989c2
Author: Mark Eggleston <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>
Date:   Thu Jun 4 05:53:31 2020 +0100

    Fortran  : ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1 PR92993

    This issue has been fixed by PR94090.  Add test case to ensure that
    this does not re-occur.

    2020-06-08  Mark Eggleston  <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>

    gcc/testsuite/

            PR fortran/92993
            * gfortran.dg/pr92993.f90: New test.

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993

--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Mark Eggleston
<markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4f719b4e1f14016dfc777227e42bd1080245248

commit r10-8263-ge4f719b4e1f14016dfc777227e42bd1080245248
Author: Mark Eggleston <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>
Date:   Thu Jun 4 05:53:31 2020 +0100

    Fortran  : ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1 PR92993

    This issue has been fixed by PR94090.  Add test case to ensure that
    this does not re-occur.

    2020-06-08  Mark Eggleston  <markeggleston@gcc.gnu.org>

    gcc/testsuite/

            PR fortran/92993
            * gfortran.dg/pr92993.f90: New test.

    (cherry picked from commit 5dc3986103d8908c802e940dea8f2def3a6989c2)

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

[markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993

markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

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

--- Comment #9 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #6)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #4)
> > The testcase in comment#0 compiles for me with today's master.
> > Has this been fixed accidentally?  Maybe someone can bisect
> > so that one can identify the commit that might be backported
> > to fix the regression.
> 
> This probably was
> 
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2298af0800b292f028298c1eaec42fd3033c4b9b
> 
> the fix for PR94090.
> 
> I think this is something that could be backported.

I tried this see:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054462.html

It won't be backported to gcc-9 and gcc-8 see:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054469.html

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

[tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So, if we're not backporting any further, we might as well mark it
as fixed.