Tobias, You are quite right to take me to task. As I wrote in the original message to the list, I was trying to respond rapidly before stepping out of the door on vacation. The original patch is attached. The fix to this problem is to revert that part in libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c. As you implicitly surmised, I was assuming that 'd' would be initialised in the caller. I cannot see why this should be the case but sometimes the optimizer seems to cut away a bit too much code :-( I have done the reversion in r277204 after regtesting, of course. I am retesting an update to 9-branch, as requested. I will submit to the list tomorrow. Cheers Paul 2019-10-19 Paul Thomas PR fortran/91926 * runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c (cfi_desc_to_gfc_desc): Revert the change made on 2019-10-05. On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 14:39, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > See also: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92027 > for a tracking bug – I just added also some analysis. > > Tobias > > PS: A better patch submission, with the actual patch attached, would > have been nice. Please re-post the committed patch – and the new patch, > which fixes the fall out. – Thanks! > > On 10/9/19 12:26 PM, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > > Hi Christophe, > > > > Thanks for flagging this up - I am back at base on Saturday and will > > take it up then. > > > > Regards > > > > Paul > > > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 11:13, Christophe Lyon wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 at 20:31, Paul Richard Thomas wrote: > >>> I must apologise not posting this before committing. I left for a > >>> vacation this morning and I thought that this problem and the one > >>> posted by Gilles were best fixed before departing. The patch only > >>> touches the new ISO_Fortran binding feature and so I thought that I > >>> would be safe to do this. > >>> > >>> It was fully regtested and only applies to trunk. > >>> > >>> Paul > >>> > >>> Author: pault > >>> Date: Sat Oct 5 08:17:55 2019 > >>> New Revision: 276624 > >>> > >>> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276624&root=gcc&view=rev > >>> Log: > >>> 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas > >>> > >>> PR fortran/91926 > >>> * trans-expr.c (gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc): Correct the > >>> assignment of the attribute field to account correctly for an > >>> assumed shape dummy. Assign separately to the gfc and cfi > >>> descriptors since the atribute can be different. Add btanch to > >>> correctly handle missing optional dummies. > >>> > >>> 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas > >>> > >>> PR fortran/91926 > >>> * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.f90 : New test. > >>> * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.c : Additional source. > >>> * gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_14.f90 : New test. > >>> > >>> 2019-10-05 Paul Thomas > >>> > >>> PR fortran/91926 > >>> * runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c (cfi_desc_to_gfc_desc): Do not > >>> modify the bounds and offset for CFI_other. > >>> > >>> Added: > >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.c > >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_13.f90 > >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_14.f90 > >>> Modified: > >>> trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog > >>> trunk/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c > >>> trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog > >>> trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog > >>> trunk/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c > >> > >> > >> Since this was committed (r276624), I have noticed regressions on arm-linux-gnueabihf: > >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/ISO_Fortran_binding_11.f90 -O3 -g execution test > >> I've seen other reports on gcc-testresults too. > >> > >> Christophe > >> > > -- "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" - Albert Einstein