[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.5 |---
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.4 |8.5 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 8.4.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.3 |8.4 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 8.3 has been released.
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.2 |8.3 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 8.2 has been released.
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.0 |8.2 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 8.1 has been released.
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.2 |8.0
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.0 |7.2 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 7.1 has been released.
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to snowfed from comment #7) > In the slightly reduced version of the test case cell is not allocated when > reaching associate structure. Maybe, allocate(cell) is worth being added. > For example, when I compile the example with ifort and run it I get SIGSEGV. True. The example was only intended as a minimal reproducer for the ICE, without doing anything reasonable at runtime ...
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 --- Comment #7 from snowfed --- In the slightly reduced version of the test case cell is not allocated when reaching associate structure. Maybe, allocate(cell) is worth being added. For example, when I compile the example with ifort and run it I get SIGSEGV.
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Here is a slightly further reduced version of the test case: module test implicit none type cell_t contains procedure :: get_mask end type contains elemental logical function get_mask (self, inode) implicit none class(cell_t), intent(in) :: self integer, intent(in) :: inode get_mask = .false. end function end module program gfortran_bug use test implicit none class(cell_t), pointer :: cell associate(mask => cell%get_mask([1,2])) end associate end
[Bug fortran/80291] [OOP] ICE in gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, at fortran/trans-array.c:6662
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80291 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone|5.5 |7.0 Summary|[5/6/7 Regression] internal |[OOP] ICE in |compiler error: in |gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, |gfc_conv_expr_descriptor, |at |at |fortran/trans-array.c:6662 |fortran/trans-array.c:6662 | --- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to snowfed from comment #4) > You mention a revision which apparently gave a compile-time error but I'm > fairly certain the code is valid. I agree. AFAICS the code should be valid. So, unless there is an old version which accepts this code, it is actually not a regression.
