+! { dg-do run }
+! This checks the patch for PR25395, in which equivalences within one
+! segment were broken by indirect equivalences, depending on the
+! offset of the variable that bridges the indirect equivalence.
+!
+! This is a fortran95 version of the original testcase, which was
+! contributed by Harald Vogt <harald.vogt@desy.de>
+program check_6
+ common /abc/ mwkx(80)
+ common /cde/ lischk(20)
+ dimension listpr(20),lisbit(10),lispat(8)
+! This was badly compiled in the PR:
+ equivalence (listpr(10),lisbit(1),mwkx(10)), &
+ (lispat(1),listpr(10))
+ lischk = (/0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, &
+ 2, 0, 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 0/)
+ call set_arrays (listpr, lisbit)
+ if (any (listpr.ne.lischk)) call abort ()
+ call sub1
+ call sub2
+ call sub3
+end
+subroutine sub1
+ common /abc/ mwkx(80)
+ common /cde/ lischk(20)
+ dimension listpr(20),lisbit(10),lispat(8)
+! This workaround was OK
+ equivalence (listpr(10),lisbit(1)), &
+ (listpr(10),mwkx(10)), &
+ (listpr(10),lispat(1))
+ call set_arrays (listpr, lisbit)
+ if (any (listpr .ne. lischk)) call abort ()
+end
+!
+! Equivalences not in COMMON
+!___________________________
+! This gave incorrect results for the same reason as in MAIN.
+subroutine sub2
+ dimension mwkx(80)
+ common /cde/ lischk(20)
+ dimension listpr(20),lisbit(10),lispat(8)
+ equivalence (lispat(1),listpr(10)), &
+ (mwkx(10),lisbit(1),listpr(10))
+ call set_arrays (listpr, lisbit)
+ if (any (listpr .ne. lischk)) call abort ()
+end
+! This gave correct results because the order in which the
+! equivalences are taken is different and was given in the PR.
+subroutine sub3
+ dimension mwkx(80)
+ common /cde/ lischk(20)
+ dimension listpr(20),lisbit(10),lispat(8)
+ equivalence (listpr(10),lisbit(1),mwkx(10)), &
+ (lispat(1),listpr(10))
+ call set_arrays (listpr, lisbit)
+ if (any (listpr .ne. lischk)) call abort ()
+end
+subroutine set_arrays (listpr, lisbit)
+ dimension listpr(20),lisbit(10)
+ listpr = 0
+ lisbit = (/(i, i = 1, 10)/)
+ lisbit((/3,4/)) = 0
+end