From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 31A94388C03D; Sat, 12 Dec 2020 18:24:59 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 31A94388C03D From: "sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/98022] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_assign_data_value, at fortran/data.c:468 since r9-3803-ga5fbc2f36a291cbe Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 18:24:59 +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: ice-on-invalid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pault at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 9.4 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 18:24:59 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98022 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl -= -- On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 05:54:43PM +0000, pault at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98022 >=20 > --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas --- > The example that you give shows that setting the undefined part to zero > certainly is not correct. I updated my tree for the commit and am only ju= st now > rebuilding. It'll be tomorrow before I put this right. >=20 > I guess that this is in the category of invalid but not forbidden. It's i= n the > same category as: > complex :: a, b > a%im =3D 1.0 > b =3D a > print *, a, b > end >=20 Yes, it's invalid under the same portion of section 19 I quoted earlier. 'a' is undefined because 'a%re' is undefined. I cannot find anything in the Standard that requires an error or a warning message.=