https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Mon, 12 Dec 2022, burnus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108056 > > --- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> --- [...] > Thus, we have two options: > > (A) We change those to functions back to the GCC 11 version; the new check was > added in Sandra's commit > r12-3321-g93b6b2f614eb692d1d8126ec6cb946984a9d01d7 > back when those functions were still used in GCC 12. > > (B) I think we have to possibilities to map this: > > BT_ASSUMED -> CFI_type_cptr or CFI_type_other; using the latter, that's the > following (untested but it should work): > > ------------------------------------------- > --- a/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c > +++ b/libgfortran/runtime/ISO_Fortran_binding.c > @@ -182,4 +182,7 @@ gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc (CFI_cdesc_t **d_ptr, const > gfc_array_void *s) > d->type = CFI_type_struct; > break; > + case BT_ASSUME: > + d->type = CFI_type_other; > + break; > case BT_VOID: > /* FIXME: PR 100915. GFC descriptors do not distinguish between > -------------------------------------------- > > Thoughts whether (A) or (B) is better? I'd go with (A) if the functions are just for legacy code and not used by GCC 12+ at all.
