As it happens, I just found that it is fixed in gcc-16 by the patch for PR91960, which is mentioned in the PR.
Cheers Paul Paul On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 at 15:23, Paul Richard Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > It already appears on the 'ICE on invalid' list, of which there are > 125 other PRs :-( > > However, I have noted your interest and the patch posted on the PR. > > Regards > > Paul > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2026 at 15:01, NightStrike <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2026 at 05:01 Paul Richard Thomas > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Several of us have been engaged in a campaign to fix as many gfortran > >> regressions as possible before the gcc-16 release. This activity was > >> triggered by Christopher Albert, who not only came up with plethora of > >> fixes but also testcases for PRs that had already been fixed; often by > >> unidentified patches. > >> > >> At present there are 17 regressions left, of which only 4 remain for > >> gcc-16. Some of the batches do not apply cleanly to gcc-13 but as the > >> backporting goes on, we will likely close those ones anyway unless an > >> easy fixup is identified. We anticipate, then, that there will be 4 > >> open fortran regressions by the end of this month. > >> > >> The current status is summarised below: > >> > >> That said, we shouldn't rest on our laurels; there are 151 open bugs > >> that are labelled as wrong code! > > > > > > Could you add this to your list? > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99506
