http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55978
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |janus at gcc dot gnu.org
|gnu.org |
--- Comment #21 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-02-06 13:00:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> Btw, as an alternative: Wouldn't it be more reasonable to move the above check
> into _gfortran_internal_pack?
Here is the very simple patch which does this:
Index: libgfortran/runtime/in_pack_generic.c
===================================================================
--- libgfortran/runtime/in_pack_generic.c (revision 195800)
+++ libgfortran/runtime/in_pack_generic.c (working copy)
@@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ internal_pack (gfc_array_char * source)
index_type size;
index_type type_size;
+ if (source->base_addr == NULL)
+ return NULL;
+
type_size = GFC_DTYPE_TYPE_SIZE(source);
size = GFC_DESCRIPTOR_SIZE (source);
switch (type_size)
It seems to work just as well as the patch in comment #18 and is much simpler.
Also it could catch this sort of thing in other situations as well. So I would
say that it is preferable over the previous patches.
Will test for regressions (but don't expect any).
