https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77327
--- Comment #7 from Fritz Reese <fritzoreese at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #5) > The test case you propose, dec_structure_13.f90, does not trigger the asan > memory checker. Sorry if it was unclear, the new testcase dec_structure_13.f90 tests a separate regression that is also fixed by the patch (see the comments in my post on the mailing list). (In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #5) > (In reply to Fritz Reese from comment #3) > > I would appreciate > > ideas for a testcase I can commit with the aforementioned patch to > > ensure this PR isn't regressed. > As I wrote before, the test case gfortran.dg/import4.f90 does trigger > the asan memory checker. Is that sufficient then to test the regression, or need I add another testcase to my patch? (In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #5) > In your test case I do not understand the final statement "call > sub2(u2)" because > sub2 is not defined. That is a typo - "sub3" from dec_structure_13.f90 line 40 should be named "sub2". That's what I get for forgetting "implicit none"... (In reply to Vittorio Zecca from comment #6) > Fritz, do you have a -fsanitize=address version of gfortran, in > particular of f951? I was not aware of the capability. I will build one.
