http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55827
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu>
2012-12-29 16:04:45 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:02:43PM +0000, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Index: class.c
> ===================================================================
> --- class.c (revision 194745)
> +++ class.c (working copy)
> @@ -162,7 +162,8 @@ gfc_fix_class_refs (gfc_expr *e)
> if ((e->expr_type != EXPR_VARIABLE
> && e->expr_type != EXPR_FUNCTION)
> || (e->expr_type == EXPR_FUNCTION
> - && e->value.function.isym != NULL))
> + && e->value.function.isym != NULL)
> + || e->symtree == NULL)
> return;
>
> ts = &e->symtree->n.sym->ts;
> Index: trans-expr.c
> ===================================================================
> --- trans-expr.c (revision 194745)
> +++ trans-expr.c (working copy)
> @@ -5527,7 +5527,7 @@ gfc_conv_function_expr (gfc_se * se, gfc
>
> /* We distinguish statement functions from general functions to improve
> runtime performance. */
> - if (expr->symtree->n.sym->attr.proc == PROC_ST_FUNCTION)
> + if (expr->symtree && expr->symtree->n.sym->attr.proc == PROC_ST_FUNCTION)
> {
> gfc_conv_statement_function (se, expr);
>
Although I agree with Mikael that gfortran should probably
not have a NULL symtree by the time we reach gfc_conv_function_expr,
the above patch regression tests cleanly.
