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 04EEE3858CDB; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 17:38:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 04EEE3858CDB
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665855495;
	bh=upD2rcHH0YzCPfT9LPcan+71kfKyHmjEjslXcVBUxKE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qABgTGwcUlZ3f1mawYG3+ATg+6NXgiB4D64il/YCmrlCNWxefmGJF1J8DIxyphEdI
	 NnVVbcAhZAqTw7pGB0NIFSPTj1IOGauqKGKPeXOhU2DgCGigNzvtp0FDm9i/7NrQY7
	 33Iti8a3UvytEEtKrZVd2o0tIeDTZOE8tC1UNwoU=
From: "mikael at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/93483] ICE in gfc_constructor_copy, at
 fortran/constructor.c:103
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 17:38:14 +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: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-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-93483-4-3jZ3nyAIcp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-93483-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-93483-4@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=3D93483

--- Comment #27 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #25)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #24)
> > First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has now a broader
> > usage (ARITH_OP_NOT_LITERAL_VALUE is a bit long, ARITH_OP_NOT_CONSTANT =
is a
> > bit misleading, ARITH_OP_NOT_SIMPLIFIED not great either, any other ide=
a?).
>=20
> I think we should keep the enum ARITH_INVALID_TYPE for those cases where =
it
> is appropriate,

Are there such cases remaining?  It seems that that value can't be returned=
 any
more.

> I was contemplating either ARITH_NOT_REDUCED or
> ARITH_CANNOT_REDUCE,
> and opted for the latter.
>=20
I have a slight preference for the former but let's go with the latter if y=
ou
prefer.  But please add a comment describing it in the definition.
Most enum values have an obvious meaning there, this one less so.


> > Second, I'm wondering whether the check in reduce_binary_aa shouldn't be
> > moved to reduce binary where it would be more clear.
>=20
> I agree that it is preferable to have checks already in reduce_binary, see
> updated patch.  After this one could remove the check from reduce_binary_=
aa,
> as it would be redundant.
>=20
And there is a redundant check in reduce_unary as well.=