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 455F23858404; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:52:12 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 455F23858404
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665687132;
	bh=BkYPfJmJFAIN+wIEtUpsgsk844L7VXin+4LBLBLHqJc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=n+VKZJcQRfbmUJR8thW/C8q06WJAH6JzT3KJMJqBRGEtnJN5ultTTItx74JYRqkjC
	 Ad3GYFofsfY5xkdl62O9q/qlKLYtgZTWV3GcjTlam8MzRDXkrK4yHOCR0btQbWggNV
	 uDn4Mn/TbFo5i4i/apyu23jXUmq9jahPNoDZ81PU=
From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" <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: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:52:11 +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: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
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-Ie6jVYVE72@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 #8 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> -=
--
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 06:43:50PM +0000, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D93483
>=20
> --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
> (In reply to kargl from comment #6)
> > Harald, I looked at your patch and agree that simplification should be =
done.
> > I don't know why I did not do it when I wrote walk_array_constructor().
>=20
> Because you had only nice Fortran code in mind and for testing?
>=20

Yep!  This probably is the root of 90% of Gerhard's bug reports.

If regtesting complete ok, and Mikael doesn't find any additional
problems.  Please commit.=