https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115265
--- Comment #6 from Matthew Krupcale <mkrupcale at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #5) > Neither PR is a regression and defined assignment is so fundamentally > incorrect, where defined assignment of components is concerned, that > sticking plaster patches do not warrant a backport. I understand that PR115265 and PR109066 may not be a regression (unless the regression happened prior to version 5.5), but the segfault certainly is undesired behavior in what seems to be valid Fortran that is accepted and runs without segfault by other compilers, and the patches [1,2] which fix it seem quite simple to backport, even if component defined assignment is so poorly implemented that it will require reworking in v16 [3]. > You could try appealing > to the gfortran mailing list. If it is OK'd there, I would be happy to > backport to 14-branch. It looks like Andre Vehreschild suggested [4] on the fortran mailing list to: 1. Add the testcase if it adds a new way. 2. Apply the backport if it applies simply and not to do so if it caused major issues. There were no other responses back then in February, but I suppose you disagree with his stance? Or did you observe major issues with the backport? In any case, I can certainly try appealing to the mailing list again. Best, Matthew [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blobdiff;f=gcc/fortran/resolve.cc;h=e8f780d1ef96413c0cd197ab36ddb1fd0fea866c;hp=b8c908b51e92c848b0ca4280d66d276c078d5a83;hb=27ff8049bbdb0a001ba46835cd6a334c4ac76573;hpb=4a4bd60fa08b9e1079ebead6cb8c3ce82c7f9ef6 [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blobdiff;f=gcc/fortran/resolve.cc;h=7f73d53e31ef11b8822974bf83e6c9fbd39fcb9f;hp=124f4ac4edcdca5406fd6b0e0e24cde95c4e5485;hb=3600b1ff14a459e84bb40bdfea7cd8d2ffd73d8d;hpb=92a5c5100c25190622ca86b63586a598952546bf [3] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-February/061688.html [4] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2025-February/061689.htm
