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 E84233858D35; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 16:57:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E84233858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1588006652;
 bh=fXIO2B1JnYlqA1rYbEM80OmGDSMIFpYlJCiDns6qmDc=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=YRJitDnzCUsq+cYB2cVThp7NHw2F05F5fk4Q34iPfNAW7BcfWXHzn3qIjEGFmUtqN
 pihutW2tp5J+CRvwF16EA1X8ffOUAdW+61dTRHIJzgNmxO1qemx9jehLoms3o9Byw4
 9f186qhOm29dhI+cogy/njCCuMcgpM/VHAW/LAIQ=
From: "tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/94578] Incorrect assignment of RESHAPE() result to a
 Fortran pointer
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 16:57:32 +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: 8.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: see_also
Message-ID: <bug-94578-4-7aimIgSsJD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94578-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94578-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 16:57:33 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94578

Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           See Also|                            |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
                   |                            |a/show_bug.cgi?id=3D93114

--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig <tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jan-Willem Blokland from comment #11)
> If you make use of an temporary variable, it sounds like you will do an
> additional memory copy. Therefore, I am wondering what the performance
> impact will be. Naively, I would think the span solution would be faster.=
=20

You are quite correct, but an optimized fix will take far more time
than is available until a release candidate for gcc 10 comes out
and all development is frozen.  I'd rather have correct code on gcc 10.

I will revisit this later as part of PR 93114.=