https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #18 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #16)
> This missed the gcc stage 1 deadline, but I'm still working on it.
Thanks Mikael! If I can help with anything do let me know :)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #16)
> This missed the gcc stage 1 deadline, but I'm still working on it.
I always thought that the Fortran FE does not fall under this rule.
Why don't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #15 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #14)
> Created attachment 56313 [details]
> inline minloc with mask
>
> This patch adds support for {min,max}loc with mask.
Awesome, thank you!
> It is not 100%
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56094|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #12)
> (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> > Created attachment 56094 [details]
> > Improved patch
> >
> > This improved patch (still single argument
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #12 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #11)
> Created attachment 56094 [details]
> Improved patch
>
> This improved patch (still single argument only) passes the fortran
> regression testsuite.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Mikael Morin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #56091|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8)
> (...) that is it was using too loops in a row in some cases.
>
... *two* loops in a row ...
(In reply to Tamar Christina from comment #9)
>
> Thanks Mikael!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #9 from Tamar Christina ---
(In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #8)
> Created attachment 56091 [details]
> Rough patch
>
> Here is a rough patch to make the scalarizer support minloc calls.
> It regresses on minloc_1.f90 at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #8 from Mikael Morin ---
Created attachment 56091
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56091=edit
Rough patch
Here is a rough patch to make the scalarizer support minloc calls.
It regresses on minloc_1.f90 at least,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mikael at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Tamar Christina changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig ---
(In reply to ktkachov from comment #4)
> LTO'ing libgfortran aside, how much work would it be to teach the scalarizer
> to at least elide the temporary arrays in expressions like:
> A(:) = minloc(...) ?
> I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
LTO'ing libgfortran aside, how much work would it be to teach the scalarizer to
at least elide the temporary arrays in expressions like:
A(:) = minloc(...) ?
I think that would be a good start
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
--- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #1)
> Another, not mutually exclusive approach would be to make libgfortran LTO
> clean so the more complex minloc etc calls could be pulled in.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90608
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
17 matches
Mail list logo
