Hi Andre,
while the patch works with the reduced testcase, it runs into the
newly added gcc_assert() when trying the original testcase in the PR.
I also wonder if this use of gcc_assert() is a good idea or good style:
+ gcc_assert (gfc_resolve_expr (tgt_expr));
Since gcc_assert is a macro, and its precise definition depends on
configuration and could possibly be defined to be a no-op, I suggest
to evaluate arguments with side-effects outside and pass the
return code to gcc_assert. (There are also many other ways to handle
this situation.
Then removing the gcc_assert around the gfc_resolve_expr() avoids
the ICE, but restores the reported error.
So not OK yet. Sorry!
Thanks,
Harald
Am 13.12.24 um 10:10 schrieb Andre Vehreschild:
Hi all,
attached patch fixes an reject-valid of an array constructor in an associate by
resolving the array constructor before parsing the associate-block. I am not
100% sure, if that is the right place to do this. But given, that there is
already a special casing before the patch, I just propose to do the resolve
there.
Regstests ok on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu / F41. Ok for mainline ?
Regards,
Andre
--
Andre Vehreschild * Email: vehre ad gmx dot de
