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 1EB893858D38; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:28:34 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1EB893858D38
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665826114;
	bh=DMSFebukcMRPzVY0cTIYIbT3rmRGaUEEIx6bw22APkg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=g3FPztbBnQEqoH9sG8aobmnxNnYn3iACRoT9SAz4qzhqUD5VBNOFJuK5rzcDo7B3X
	 vR78YHnwqLpnwHJ4Af92zjWjJIpaOhtjZI9W3tlZy2RcwOSWG3BTEQdlOvqIVM/BCw
	 96CiaWDK0M9Nc2tdFw/G72Q5NZstl0ugB9SbrV3g=
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 09:28:31 +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-PooNkvhgwL@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 #24 from Mikael Morin <mikael at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #21)
>=20
> Yeah, I was getting just rather close to this one...
>=20
Sorry, I didn't want to take it out of your hands.
It seemed that no real solution was emerging.

(In reply to anlauf from comment #23)
> Here's a patch that incorporates comment#17 and comment#20 and adds a
> testcase
> for comment #11.  Regtests fine.
>=20
> @Mikael: is it what you suggested?

Yes.
It gives a general direction, but there are a couple of things that I'm not
satisfied with.

First, the ARITH_INVALID_TYPE should be renamed as it has now a broader usa=
ge
(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?).

Second, I'm wondering whether the check in reduce_binary_aa shouldn't be mo=
ved
to reduce binary where it would be more clear.  But then it would be less
consistent with reduce_binary_ac and reduce_binary_ca.=