From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5F8883858C39; Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:43:50 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5F8883858C39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1665686630; bh=/bwpTK1KV8pl6YYAlPbWr/H+vUHo06x/pOESni2n368=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=l+iqWYIKmpUkTGDCmI4iCOedDP88SE1MBIC0rWinZ1UMATlw4aOMpZfp/UzWLB/BQ WHevhyzagF+i+PH92AnVSnVyztF2WTZpn1K2mvMsII46HtYNVZxmVU1N1mJR0tXfKP J80S9UBrZB5lUn9zQfJUH+tuizojNwVh1p5DKqkA= 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: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 18:43:50 +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 #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 do= ne. > I don't know why I did not do it when I wrote walk_array_constructor(). Because you had only nice Fortran code in mind and for testing? Well, I was wondering where the necessary simplifications would fit best. walk_array_constructor is just one place, and if it hasn't happened before, then it needs to be ensured there.=