Hi Mikael,

On 5/23/24 09:49, Mikael Morin wrote:
> Le 13/05/2024 à 09:25, Mikael Morin a écrit :
>> Le 10/05/2024 à 21:56, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
>>> Am 10.05.24 um 21:48 schrieb Harald Anlauf:
>>>> Hi Mikael,
>>>>
>>>> Am 10.05.24 um 11:45 schrieb Mikael Morin:
>>>>> Le 09/05/2024 à 22:30, Harald Anlauf a écrit :
>>>>>> I'll stop here...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks. Go figure, I have no problem reproducing today.
>>>>> It's PR99798 (and there is even a patch for it).
>>>>
>>>> this patch has rotten a bit: the type of gfc_reluease_symbol
>>>> has changed to bool, this can be fixed.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, applying the patch does not remove the ICEs here...
>>>
>>> Oops, I take that back!  There was an error on my side applying the
>>> patch; and now it does fix the ICEs after correcting that hickup....
>>>
>> Now the PR99798 patch is ready to be pushed, but I won't be available 
>> for a few days.  We can finish our discussion on this topic afterwards.
>>
> Hello,
> 
> I'm coming back to this.
> I think either one of Steve's patch or your variant in the PR is a 
> better fix for the ICE as a first step; they seem less fragile at least.
> Then we can look at a possible reordering of conflict checks as with the 
> patch you originally submitted in this thread.

like the attached variant?

Harald

> Mikael
>