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 25A72385DC31; Thu, 10 Sep 2020 23:12:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 25A72385DC31
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1599779577;
 bh=zCukHEwkXADijzounE6k+hhAFcr96kXZEd36mCKfeA4=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=Yudvwe9ZCWcruR9qcYTvcxuhE4/Gp5RHpxv2TAapCBi3NlpUS+GgBvDFI7vELB8Ci
 x9OcY7HeQspBTboTkWdDMkxx47NFXQaPIiAcShtnXwG7Cb/E2apdh90gyMglV1CtFT
 WQ0jzW03X/Ip4aFPF2aA4LrHhyPNGazKaFgaxZ6Q=
From: "bergner at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/96983] [11 regression] ICE compiling
 gfortran.dg/pr96711.f90 starting with r11-3042
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 23:12:56 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-96983-4-non7GhKOBX@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96983-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96983-4@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: <https://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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 23:12:57 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96983

--- Comment #16 from Peter Bergner <bergner at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I don't know why gfc_real_kinds[2].mode_precision is 127, but I guess that =
is
what is causing us to trigger the assert.

When I tried adding -mfloat128 -mabi=3Dieeelongdouble to switch us to using
IEEE128 as our long double type, I get the same
gfc_real_kinds[2].mode_precision equal to 127.  I'm not sure why.  I don't =
know
this code.=