From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6E3FF3858C39; Wed, 25 Aug 2021 21:12:07 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6E3FF3858C39 From: "anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug fortran/99125] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (gimplify.c:15068) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 21:12:07 +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: anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P4 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pault at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 9.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_known_to_work cc 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: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 21:12:07 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99125 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Known to work| |11.2.1, 12.0 CC| |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- AFAICT the invalid testcase in comment#0 does not ICE after the commit in comment#6 on gcc-12 and 11-branch, so Paul simply needs to backport to 10- and 9-branches. The bounds violation is correctly detected at runtime: At line 8 of file pr99125.f90 Fortran runtime error: Index '7' of dimension 1 of array 'x' outside of expected range (1:2) The testcase in comment#1 still works. Also, the invalid testcase in comment#5 are handled at runtime. @Paul: do you intent to backport your patch so that we can close this one?=