https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #12 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #11)
> (In reply to kargl from comment #10)
> > (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
>
> > which is equivalent to
> >
> >tmp = 1 / y
> >do i = 1, n
> >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #11 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #10)
> (In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> I'm not sure what you are worried about here. If one has
>
>do i = 1, n
> ... = expression1(..., 1/y)
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to anlauf from comment #8)
> The suggested optimization needs to take into account that the evaluation
> of the temporary expression might trap, or that allocatable variables are
> not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||21046
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The suggested optimization needs to take into account that the evaluation
of the temporary expression might trap, or that allocatable variables are
not allocated, etc.
The trap etc. would not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The attached testcase use xmin and xmax uninitialized.
After setting xmin = 0 and xmax = 1 and adding z(1) to
the print statements to prevent the inner loop from
being optimized away, I see the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig ---
*** Bug 45676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-10-02
08:10:51 UTC ---
Related to PR 45777.
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 11:11 ---
In the middle-end this somewhat is related to PR26387. Of course this is a
place
where frontend optimization is probably easier to do.
Confirmed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-09 16:08 ---
Note, above the first FORALL statement one needs to add
the following 2 lines of code
xmin = 0.
xmax = 1.
As a side note, both Pathscale and Intel in the c.l.f thread have
acknowledged that their compilers also
--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-08 21:32 ---
Created an attachment (id=12871)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12871action=view)
missed optimization
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30409
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-08 21:36 ---
Sorry about the long URL, but the code comes from this comp.lang.fortran
thread.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.fortran/browse_thread/thread/9f9bf1c116dc4b69/712366ef4318e84d#712366ef4318e84d
--
12 matches
Mail list logo
