From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 55B303858C52; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:55:26 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 55B303858C52 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1665842126; bh=WFNLQrV5iBC4Hf9wsxcEP0p/SckLoIVC28w6I6Y7rlA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ypIFRpcYB/mhG2HSM9MrJsBtq3bgtDpA1ZHwuc+gRPdbNGuChSuOJwLVCiY80icEy LXgTdEDdL/ZtCeN4kia7PTr3x9fdsHSd880XNX36k1K1034D/nBaYXcmoXi0GdsOgW 8ZBUPWw5JO+G5xYwAbhhK0lZlsCKgCDq4fLYnFSM= From: "anlauf at gcc dot 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 13:55:25 +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: 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: 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=3D93483 --- Comment #25 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (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 idea?= ). I think we should keep the enum ARITH_INVALID_TYPE for those cases where it is appropriate, and have a different enum for cases where reduce_* does not succeed. I was contemplating either ARITH_NOT_REDUCED or ARITH_CANNOT_REDU= CE, and opted for the latter. > Second, I'm wondering whether the check in reduce_binary_aa shouldn't be > moved to reduce binary where it would be more clear. 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. > But then it would be > less consistent with reduce_binary_ac and reduce_binary_ca. I wouldn't say "less consistent", it just looks less symmetric, but this is only so as long as you ignore the code in reduce_binary.=