Hi Mikael, You beat me to it - thanks!
I was going to make the following remark about patch #1: I couldn't help but wonder whether or not we might, one day, need deep copy in/copy out? I cannot imagine for what it would be needed but, if the answer to the question is affirmative should we implement it now and eliminate the assertion? Cheers Paul On Tue, 25 Aug 2026 at 12:42, Mikael Morin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 25/08/2026 à 01:38, Jerry D a écrit : > > See attached 5 of 5 patch > > > > Regression tested on x86_64 > > > > Regards, > > > > Jerry > > > > --- > > > > fortran: [PR49802]-5 Absent optional actual argument > > passed to a VALUE dummy > > > > The private copy made for a VALUE dummy dereferenced the actual > > argument unconditionally, so passing an absent optional actual argument > > to an optional VALUE dummy segfaulted. Both the array copy and the > > copy made for a CHARACTER dummy of assumed or non-constant length have > > to be suppressed when the actual argument is absent. > > > > gfc_conv_subref_array_arg already has the machinery: given the symbol > > of the actual argument it suppresses its copy and passes a null pointer > > instead, so the array case just has to hand it that symbol rather than > > the symbol of the procedure being called. This is what makes the two > > pass_optional fixes of the first patch of this series reachable. > > conv_dummy_value has no such machinery and guards its CHARACTER copy > > directly, passing a null pointer and a zero length when the actual > > argument is absent. > > > > PR fortran/49802 > > > > gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: > > > > * trans-expr.cc (conv_dummy_value): Suppress the CHARACTER copy > > and pass a null pointer and a zero length when the actual argument > > is an absent optional one. > > (gfc_conv_procedure_call): Give gfc_conv_subref_array_arg the > > symbol of the actual argument, so that an absent optional one > > suppresses the copy. > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > > > * gfortran.dg/value_18.f90: New test. > > --- > OK.
