https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122977
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> --- On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 08:44:39PM +0000, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #3) > > > > I haven't looked at the issue with gfc_is_simply_contiguous() in > > comment #2, but if it passes regression testing, and you have a > > testcase (or two) feel free to commit. The comment in the patch > > explains the rationale. > > The change in comment#2 regresses on gfortran.dg/associate_11.f90 > because it will pack the associate variable before passing to a subroutine. > I don't have a simple answer yet. I see. In looking at the symbol_attribute struct in gfortran.h, does the packing lead to attr.temporary or attr.artificial being set? These are the only ones that look like they may convey some needed info; otherwise, we could add a new packed_arg attribute.
